Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps and issues with virtual hearing mechanisms, the assessee could not present all relevant facts. The counsel also pointed out a lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act in the appellate order.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and issues with virtual hearings, as well as the non-compliance with section 250(6). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were conducted properly, ensuring the assessee had effective opportunities to present their case and if the appellate order complied with statutory requirements.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042628048(1) dated 07.04.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Ankit Kumar Gupta 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to set aside the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.