Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps during virtual hearings prevented them from presenting their case effectively.
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 in the lower appellate order. Therefore, to serve the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether communication gaps in virtual hearings and procedural irregularities in the lower appellate order warrant a restoration of the case for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra
Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Ravi Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 1879, Pine Hall Public National e-Assessment School, Anangpur, Amarnagar Centre, Delhi (S.O.) Faridabad, Haryana-21003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CCCPK1637B Assessee by : Sh. A. K. Tyagi, AR Revenue by : Sh. D. S. Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 01.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.10.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071824378(1) dated 02.01.2025, 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 proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Ravi Kumar 4. 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.