SHANTI PETWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 44/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 144

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

Hearing: 17.03.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025
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/250/2023-24/1060898435(1), dated 14.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

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, 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.

3.

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 →