Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order related to assessment year 2019-20, involving proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps in virtual hearings, the assessee could not adequately present their case.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC due to alleged communication gaps during virtual proceedings.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, 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/250/2025-26/1078183159(1), dated 04.07.2025 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.
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, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the 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 of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism 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 its afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.