Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed that due to communication gaps in virtual hearings, they couldn't present all facts and additional evidence was wrongly rejected by the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate authority erred in rejecting additional evidence due to communication gaps during virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
143(3), 46A, 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 Mr. Madan Rauniyar Vs Income Tax Officer, Proprietor M/s Gem Internationals, Ward-2(1)(3), C-145, Paramount Golforeste, Ghaziabad Opposite Sector-Zeta, Sector-C, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201306 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHOPR7967E Assessee by : Ms. Muskan Yadav, Audit Executive 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 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070637848(1) dated 26.11.2024, 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 assessment proceedings; Madan Rauniyar and, therefore, he chose to file his relevant additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1963 which has been wrongly rejected in the lower appellate proceedings. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s additional evidence herein very much goes to the root of the matter.
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 fact 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, after admission of the above additional evidence, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.