Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 arose against an order. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively present their case in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to virtual hearings and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. It was deemed appropriate to set aside the appeal and remand it back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate proceedings were conducted effectively, and if there were any communication gaps hindering the assessee's right to be heard.
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 2019-20, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025–26/1077284904(1) dated 20.06.2025, 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 proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of
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 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.