VIRENDER KUMAR,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, KARNAL, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 194/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 November 2025AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was against an order passed under section 144. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case effectively before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 24.11.2025Pronounced: 24.11.2025
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2024-25/1070409581(1), dated 18.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

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, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, 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.

3.

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 restore 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.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →