Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps during virtual hearings, 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 non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were vitiated due to communication gaps in virtual hearings and non-compliance with statutory provisions, warranting a remand.
Sections Cited
144, 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
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Rajesh Dagar, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 210, Village and PO Gauchi, Ward-2(2), Faridabad, Haryana-121008 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMTPD8285H Assessee by: Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072025150(1) dated 09.01.2025, 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 justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Rajesh Dagar 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 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025.