Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps, they could not present all facts before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal held that communication gaps, especially with new virtual hearing mechanisms, could not be ruled out, and there was a lack of compliance with Section 250(6) in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC due to alleged communication gaps and procedural irregularities in the lower appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bhagwan Das, Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 159, Main Bazar, Bawana, Ward-34(6), Delhi-110039 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BGAPD1787N Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Pahwa, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057167990(1) dated 18.10.2023, in proceedings u/s 144 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
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 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.