RAJ KUMAR DAGA HUF,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO,WARD-30(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5118/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member)2 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 05.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/s Raj Kumar Daga HUF, Vs Income Tax Officer, 7, Loha Mandi, Ward-30(5), Ghaziabad-201001 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHHR2840G Assessee by : Sh. Akash Ojha, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.05.2025 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069565801(1) dated 09.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

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, in the larger interest of

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →