NARESH KUMAR SHARMA,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 arose against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel submitted that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not appear to present facts before the lower appellate authority.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower appellate order is vitiated due to communication gaps and non-compliance with statutory provisions, requiring restoration of the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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: 2018-19 Naresh Kumar Sharma, Vs DCIT, 2401, DLF, Phase-IV, Central Circle-27, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ALXPK4565G Assessee by : Sh. Paritosh Jain, 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:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/91/2024-25/1074431758(1) dated 12.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.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
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 instant appeal 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.
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026