Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 arose against an order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed that due to communication gaps and the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, they could not effectively present their case.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and noted that the lower appellate order did not effectively comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the lower appellate order was compliant with statutory provisions and if the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity to present their case in light of communication challenges.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 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 : 2013-14 Anup Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, 4th Floor, Room No. 401, E-Ramp, 128, Prem Nagar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Bhairon Marg, Pragti Maidan, New Delhi-110003 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BNVPS5246P Assessee by: Sh. Dhruv Girdhar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077820177(1) dated 26.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 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.
Anup Singh 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.