GINNI DEVI,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-15, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that communication gaps could not be ruled out and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed four appeals before the ITAT for different assessment years. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts before the lower appellate authority.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were vitiated due to communication gaps, necessitating a remand for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
These assessee’s four appeals for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2022- 23 and 2023-24 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-26), [in
ITA No.- 5836 to 5839/Del/2026 Ginni Devi short, the “Ld. CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order all dated 13.04.2026 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2026-27/1088420958(1), 1088420738(1), 1088420477(1), and 1088420134(1) involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files 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, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A). The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeals back to the learned CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
ITA No.- 5836 to 5839/Del/2026 Ginni Devi 5. These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos. 5836 to 5839/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09th July, 2026
Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th July, 2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026