GOLA SIZZLER RG,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), GURGAON, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6076/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and observed a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the appellate order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps and issues with virtual hearings, the assessee could not adequately present its case before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer due to communication gaps and procedural irregularities in the lower appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 30.10.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Gola Sizzler RG, Vs Income Tax Officer, SCO 39, Sector-29, DLF QE S.O. Ward-1(5), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJFG4815E Assessee by: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078603624(1) dated 17.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the Assessing Officer.

Gola Sizzler RG 4. 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.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →