BRIJESH TIWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO(, WARD-42(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 April 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 276 days in filing the appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, particularly with the introduction of virtual hearing mechanisms, and also noted the absence of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, which mandates the framing of points of determination and detailed adjudication. Consequently, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC is 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, Akash Malik, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 29.01.2024. This order was passed in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 276 days. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not appear and present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. The ITAT noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism and also observed a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned order, which requires framing of points of determination and detailed adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back 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. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that due to communication gaps at various levels, they were unable to appear and present all relevant facts before 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 from 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

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 25.08.2025Pronounced: 25.08.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060213974(1) dated 29.01.2024, 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.

Delay of 276 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

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

5.

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.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →