Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's three appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were filed against the orders of the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, they could not present all relevant facts effectively.
Held
The Tribunal observed that communication gaps might have occurred and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and restored them to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order was procedurally fair and whether the assessee had adequate opportunity to present their case, considering alleged communication gaps.
Sections Cited
153C, 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. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Vs DCIT, Vill + PO-Bhuapur, Central Circle-27, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BKEPA9250P Assessee by : Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv. & Sh. Sharad Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 25.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s three appeals in 3196 & 3197/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17, arise against the CIT(A), Delhi-31’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1075248228(1), 1075246989(1) & 1075247558(1) all dated 29.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Learned counsel submits that on account of communication gaps at various levels, the assessee could not 3196 & 3197/Del/2025 Ashok Kumar 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).
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance 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 all appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.