Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claims that due to communication gaps with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, they could not present their case effectively before the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Held
The Tribunal noted that communication gaps in virtual hearings are plausible and that the lower appellate order lacked a detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether communication gaps in virtual hearings warrant setting aside the lower appellate order and whether the lower appellate order complied with Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Asstt. Year: 2017-18 DD Global Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, Kansal Singla and Associates, Circle-7(1), SCO 80-81, 3rd Floor, Sector-17C, New Delhi Chandigarh,-160017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCD3034G Assessee by : Sh. T. N. Singla, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073695044(1) dated 25.02.2025, in proceedings u/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.