Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed that due to communication gaps and the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, they could not effectively present their case before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal held that communication gaps in virtual hearings could not be ruled out and that there was a lack of compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order was vitiated due to communication gaps and non-compliance with statutory provisions, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 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. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sh. Harjeet Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, 9A/75, Ground Floor, Wea Channa Ward-51(1), Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110005 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AATPS1060K Assessee by : Sh. Prakash Gupta, CA & Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Chand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 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/250/2024–25/1071253039(1) dated 16.12.2024, 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
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.