Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arose against the order of the PCIT. The assessee's counsel contended that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts in lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to alleged communication gaps hindering the assessee's representation.
Sections Cited
147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31 [in short, the “PCIT”], New Delhi’s order dated 04.11.2025 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10641/2014-15, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. 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, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A). The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making 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 appeal back to the 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.