SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 457/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 March 2025AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.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 possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, could not be entirely ruled out. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the impugned lower appellate order did not effectively comply with Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates the framing of points of determination and detailed adjudication. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal 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, Mandir Shri Sita Ram Ji Maharaj Sewa Samiti, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 14.11.2024. The appeal arose from proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps at various levels, the assessee was unable to appear and present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the assessee requested that the matter be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The revenue was represented by its Senior Departmental Representative.

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 inability to present all facts. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that communication gaps prevented them from appearing and proving all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, the case should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication in the larger interest of justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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: 02.06.2025Pronounced: 02.06.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070384247(1) dated 14.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 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.

Mandir Shri Sita Ram Jai Maharaj Sewa Samiti 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 →