RAJINDER KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6456/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2025AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps. The Revenue supported the additions made by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC and if the appeal should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 25.11.2025Pronounced: 25.11.2025

Date of hearing 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, 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/250/2024-25/1073545489(1), dated 21.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →