SDL FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 22(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5200/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and the lack of proper adjudication in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps, they could not effectively present their case before the lower appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower appellate proceedings were conducted effectively and whether the order adhered to statutory requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 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

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 29.09.2025Pronounced: 29.09.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 SDL Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-1/155, 2nd Floor, Paschim Vihar, Ward-22(3), C. R. Building, New Delhi-110063 New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAPCS8622L Assessee by: Sh. Aksash Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Vivek Sarin, CA 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 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078817118(1) dated 23.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →