Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 arose from an order under section 143(3). The assessee contended that due to communication gaps, they could not present all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings. The Tribunal also noted a lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned order.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the virtual hearing mechanism, and the non-compliance with procedural requirements in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer due to communication gaps and procedural deficiencies in the lower appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081728014(1) dated 14.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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 Assessing Officer.
Praveen Gupta 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.