KISHAN SEVA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD,SAHASPUR DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SUBHAS NAGAR DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeals. The matters were sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three opportunities for hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee faced assessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 and 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. Due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting its case effectively due to communication gaps in the lower appellate proceedings, necessitating a remand.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “DB”, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s four appeals along with as many stay applications ITA Nos. 361, 362, 365 & 364/DDN/2026 and S.A. Nos.15, 14, 16 & 17/DDN/2026 for assessment years 2019-20 to 2021-22 & 2023-24, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the
ITA Nos. 361, 362, 365 & 364/DDN/2026 S.A. Nos. 14 to 17/DDN/2026
“CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders dated 20.02.2026, 09.03.2026, 10.10.2025 (in AYs 2021-22 & 2023-24) having DINs and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1086311123(1), 1087084891(1), 1081709947(1) and 101710020(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay(s) of 97 days in ITA No.361/DDN/2026, 66 days in ITA No.362/DDN/2026 and 219 days each in both the appeals ITA Nos. 365 & 364/DDN/2026, are condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. Learned counsel next 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 matters may be restored back to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.
2 | P a g e
ITA Nos. 361, 362, 365 & 364/DDN/2026 S.A. Nos. 14 to 17/DDN/2026
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 appeals ITA Nos. 361, 362, 365 & 364/DDN/2026 back to the Assessing Officer for its afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 5. These assessee’s four appeals ITA Nos.361, 362, 365 & 364/DDN/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes and the corresponding stay applications S.A. Nos.15, 14, 16 & 17/DDN/2026 are dismissed as rendered infructuous in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th August, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31st August, 2026. 3 | P a g e
ITA Nos. 361, 362, 365 & 364/DDN/2026 S.A. Nos. 14 to 17/DDN/2026
RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
4 | P a g e
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026