Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals concern Assessment Year 2016-17, arising from proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the virtual hearing mechanism, and noted a lack of compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the matter should be restored to the lower appellate authority due to alleged communication gaps and procedural irregularities.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 147, 144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These assessee’s twin appeals & 192/Agr./2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1063075802(1) & 1063075605(1) dated 21.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not appear to plead & 192/Agr./2024 Ravi Kant Agarwal 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. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.
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 fact that there is also no 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.