SHANTI PETWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for the assessee to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was filed against an order passed under section 144. The assessee claimed that due to communication gaps, they could not present their case effectively before the lower appellate authority.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case effectively before the CIT(A)/NFAC 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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
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/250/2023-24/1060898435(1), dated 14.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
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 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. 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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Sri Bharath Reddy vs. M/S Nagarjuna Group Of RestaurantsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Greenlam Industries LTD And Another vs. The UOI And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026