Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 arises against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps at various levels and the introduction of virtual hearings, the assessee could not present all relevant facts.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps and procedural irregularities in the order passed under virtual hearing proceedings.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year: 2013-14 BB Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., Vs CIT(A)/NFAC B 1/1, IIIrd Floor, Part-II, Model Delhi Town, New Delhi-110009 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB8010B Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Uma Upadhyay, CA Revenue by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076888701(1) dated 10.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. 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
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. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of determination to be framed followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon. 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.