Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 was filed against an order involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps prevented them from presenting all relevant facts.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting facts due to communication gaps, warranting restoration of the appeal to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Global India Electricals, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Y 84-85, Welcome Wooden Ward-55(5), MA Seelampur, Phase II, Delhi Shahdara, Delhi PAN: AAHFG3452B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA Sh. Saksham Garg, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER 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/250/2025-26/1080587527(1), dated 10.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. 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, the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer. 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. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore 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.