Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 arises from an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps, they could not appear or present relevant facts effectively.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the virtual hearing mechanism. It also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was unable to present their case effectively due to communication gaps in the lower appellate proceedings, and if the matter should be remanded.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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: 2019-20 Manohar Doshi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 141-142, 1st Floor, Vardhman Ward-36(1), Fashion Mall, Raod No. 43, Near New Delhi-110002 Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEPD1939M Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goyal, CA & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/10732242029(1) dated 13.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 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.