Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 was filed against an order involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's counsel submitted that communication gaps prevented them from presenting all relevant facts before the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether restoration of the appeal to the Assessing Officer is warranted due to communication gaps preventing the assessee from presenting all facts before the lower appellate authority.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 19.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.01.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080316457(1), dated 03.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. 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, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer. 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 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.