ARTCRAFT SALES,DELHI vs. ASSESMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6312/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2020-21 with a significant delay. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps prevented them from presenting all facts in the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case due to communication gaps in the lower appellate proceedings, warranting a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Sayantani Kanungo, Adv. (VC)
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6312/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Artcraft Sales Vs. Income Tax Officer, 6, Jhansi Road, Ward No. 52(1), New Delhi- 110 055 Delhi PAN: AABFA1282H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sayantani Kanungo, Adv. (VC) Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 03.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 03.08.2026 ORDER PER STABEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, “CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065649138(1), dated 14.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 Delay of 518 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

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, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.

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. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore 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. 2 | P a g e

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10.08.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →