Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2020-21. The appeal arose from proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel stated that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively present their case in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from effectively presenting their case before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps, and if the order passed lacked proper adjudication points.
Sections Cited
143(3), 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 : 2020-21 Harpal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 74 6 Niti Vihar, Kirari Suleman Ward-45(1), Nagar, Delhi-110086 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADQPH7020L Assessee by: Sh. Umesh Thakur, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077442074(1) dated 23.06.2025, in proceedings u/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 proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
Harpal 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.