Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals for AY 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 communication gaps prevented the assessee from appearing and presenting their case effectively.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism, and also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act regarding points of determination. In the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC due to communication gaps and procedural irregularities in the lower appellate proceedings.
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.