Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the order of CIT(A)-24. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts effectively before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored back to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and procedural issues in the lower appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024–25/10736888555(1) dated 25.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. 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, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A).
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. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective 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) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.