Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose from proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps prevented them from effectively pleading their case before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the potential for communication gaps, particularly with new virtual hearing mechanisms. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether communication gaps prevented the assessee from presenting their case, justifying a remand for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059165095(1), dated 28.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file 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 Assessing Officer. 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 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 Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.