Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 arose against an order dated 29.07.2025. The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts. The tribunal noted potential issues with the virtual hearing mechanism and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
Held
The tribunal held that due to communication gaps and procedural lapses, it was appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the order and restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether procedural irregularities and communication gaps in the lower appellate proceedings warrant setting aside the order and remanding the case for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
147, 144C(13), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Siddharth Shankar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 305, Block-E, Wasl R420, AI CGO Complex-1, Purani Karama, Dubai, UAE-111111 Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BLCPS5171A Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the order dated 29.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) 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.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance Siddharth Shankar 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 on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.