Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 arose against the order of the CIT(A) in proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that communication gaps could not be ruled out and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was unable to present facts due to communication gaps in lower appellate proceedings, warranting restoration of the appeal.
Sections Cited
147, 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: 2014-15 M/s Ambarnuj Finance and Vs DCIT, Investments Pvt. Ltd., B-243, Northex Central Circle-26, Mall, Sector-9, Rohini Court, New Delhi-110055 Rohini, Delhi-110085 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACA5799F Assessee by : Ms. Shilpi Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s in case No. CIT(A), Delhi-29/10595/2013-14 dated 18.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 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 proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A).
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels 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) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.