Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2019-20. The appeals arose from proceedings under Section 143(3)/263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that communication gaps prevented them from presenting all relevant facts.
Held
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. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A) due to communication gaps and non-compliance with procedural requirements, to ensure a fair adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 263, 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 : 2019-20 Sh. Atul Jain, Vs ACIT/JAO/DCIT BN-20, Shalimar Bagh, Central Circle-29, C. R. Delhi-110088 Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGJPB1648N Assessee by : Sh. Keshav Dwivedi, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s three appeals in 3200 & 3201/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2019-20, arise against the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1074868382(1), 1074868725(1) & 1074868891(1) all dated 22.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3)/263 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 3200 & 3201/Del/2025 Atul Jain 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.