M/S CVENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2374/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 March 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the possibility of communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out. In the larger interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be given three effective opportunities of hearing, at their risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the lower authorities. The ratio decidendi is that where there is a possibility of procedural lapses or communication gaps hindering a fair hearing, the appellate authority should restore the matter to the lower authority for a fresh adjudication, ensuring adequate opportunities for the assessee to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Abhimanyu Suryan, has filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps at various levels, the assessee was unable to present all relevant facts and arguments before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue supported the actions of the lower authorities, which included making additions on merits. The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to alleged communication gaps at various levels, preventing the assessee from presenting all relevant facts and arguments. (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that communication gaps prevented them from adequately presenting their case before the lower appellate authority and therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently supported the action of the learned lower authorities, asserting that additions were made on merits. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Adv. Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv
Hearing: 05.06.2025Pronounced: 05.06.2025

Date of hearing 05.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2024-25/1073677403(1), dated 25.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case files 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, 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.

4.

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 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →