DAYARAM,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that communication gaps could not be ruled out and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in the larger interest of justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee could not appear in lower appellate proceedings due to communication gaps. The assessee requested the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case due to communication gaps, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Dayaram, H. No. 181, Vill.- Palwali Ward-1(1), Khedikalan, Near Sector Faridabad 88, Faridabad PAN: BOHPD2412K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. D.C. Garg, CA Department by Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.11.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, 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/250/2024-25/1072763908(1), dated 31.01.2025 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, larger interest of justice would be met, in case, the matter may be restored back to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue vehemently support the learned lower authorities action making 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 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 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd November, 2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Susmita Das vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise , Bhubaneswar Commissionerate,KhurdaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Saroj Kumar Mahanandia vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S. Susanta Mohanty, Gandarpur, Cuttack vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Arun Kumar Mallik vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs,BbsrOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Sabita Khosla vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Rayagada-Ii Range, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026