SANT MANDAL DHARMARTH TRUST,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, (E), DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, it set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 was filed against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee claimed that due to communication gaps, they could not present their case effectively in the lower appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was prevented from adequately presenting their case before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps, warranting a remand.
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 2020-21, 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/250/2023-24/1062083345(1), dated 06.03.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) 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 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Karo Sambhav Private Limited Through Its Director Mr. Pranshu Singhal vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 31 Oct 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026