Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear and present all facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the possibility of communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be ruled out. It was also observed that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act regarding points of determination in the appellate order.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order suffers from procedural infirmities leading to non-effective adjudication, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 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&
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077096149(1) dated 17.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.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
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 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 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.