SMT. BRIJESH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5171/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 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&

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

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”).

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

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 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →