Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against an order involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively plead and prove relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. Considering the larger interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC due to communication gaps hindering the assessee's ability to present their case.
Sections Cited
144
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 2017-18, 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/250/2025-26/1081558961(1), dated 08.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 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 CIT(A)/NFAC. 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 CIT(A)/NFAC for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.