Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was against a CIT(A) order in proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps and issues with the virtual hearing mechanism, the assessee could not appear or present facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act by the lower appellate authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s order, passed without effective compliance to Section 250(6) and sufficient opportunity to the assessee due to communication gaps in virtual hearing, should be set aside and the matter remanded to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
147, 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
Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Neeraj Chaudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. B-24, PS Sihani Get Gagan Ward-2(2)(1), Enclave, Amrit Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad-201009 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AXSPC7168C Assessee by: Sh. Pankaj Singh, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080715441(1) dated 15.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 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 justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the Assessing Officer.
Neeraj Chaudhary 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 Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.