JASMINE SINGH,TEXAS, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 845/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and restored the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities for hearing at their risk.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was filed with a significant delay. The assessee claimed communication gaps prevented them from presenting all facts in lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA (Virtual)
Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 845/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jasmine Singh Vs Income Tax Officer House 803, MASS CGHS, Plot No. Ward-43(6), Civic Centre, 24, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110002 New Delhi- 110075 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AMWPB1376Q

Assessee by: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, CA (Virtual) Revenue by : Sh. Sudip Majumdar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’), Delhi’s order DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073526686(1), dated 20.02.2025, involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s/Revenue’s condonation averments, delay of 272 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

2 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 AO. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authorities’ 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 AO for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →