Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against the common order of the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, which arose from proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were filed with a delay of 262 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the larger interest of justice. Observing communication gaps at various levels and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and non-compliance with procedural requirements in the lower appellate order.
Sections Cited
153C, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year : 2020-21 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Vs ACIT, 182, New Grain Market, Central Circle-1, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BEHPK6112B Assessee by : Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s four appeals in to 5032/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2021-22, arise against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s common order dated 27.09.2024 in case Nos. 11268, 11544, 11942, 10832, 11059/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2014-15 to 2018-19, in proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Delay of 262 days in filing of all these appeals are condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
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).
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. 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 all appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.