Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 arises against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee claims that due to communication gaps at various levels, they could not appear and present their case effectively.
Held
The Tribunal held that communication gaps might have occurred due to the virtual hearing mechanism and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case effectively due to communication gaps, and if the CIT(A)'s order complied with the procedural requirements of the Act.
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 : 2012-13 Tarun Roi Arora, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-5/124, Safdarjung Enclave, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110029 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKPA0408N Assessee by: Sh. Ankur Chaurasia, 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 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A), Delhi-31’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078367198(1) dated 10.07.2025, 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).
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communication gaps at various levels in such an instance Tarun Roi Arora 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) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.