NATASHA CHOPRA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2293/DEL/2024Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 February 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be entirely ruled out. Furthermore, it was observed that the impugned lower appellate order did not effectively comply with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates the framing of points of determination followed by detailed adjudication. In light of these observations and in the larger interest of justice, the ITAT deemed it appropriate to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sandeep Verma, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated February 14, 2025. This order was passed in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps, he was unable to present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The ITAT noted that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be ruled out and that the impugned order did not effectively comply with Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires points of determination and detailed adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's submission of communication gaps and the alleged non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act by the lower appellate authority? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that due to communication gaps at various levels, he could not appear and prove all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC in the larger interest of justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 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

Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 10.07.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073296488(1) dated 14.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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 proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.

1.

Sandeep Verma 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 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →