Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) in proceedings under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not appear to present all facts before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the submission regarding communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings. The Tribunal also noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order was passed without effective adjudication and compliance with statutory requirements due to communication gaps. Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 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: 2023-24 Rajender Singh, Vs ACIT, 587, Kakrola Housing Complex, Central Circle-32, Mohan Garden Kakrola Village, New Delhi-110055 Delhi-110059 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. GEKPS0873F Assessee by : Sh. Vinod Kumar Garg, CA Revenue by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2023-24, arises against the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/10788968367(1) dated 28.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 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 Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.