Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arises against an order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claims that due to communication gaps and the virtual hearing mechanism, they could not effectively represent their case.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a significant delay in filing the appeal and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps during virtual hearings. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's appeal should be restored to the lower appellate authority due to issues with virtual hearings and effective representation.
Sections Cited
147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Rajesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, VPO-Bandaheri, The. & Distt. Hisar, Ward-1, Haryana-125004 Hisar, Haryana-125001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BKJPK4398H Assessee by: Sh. Dhruv Girdhar, 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 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067064389(1) dated 26.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 320 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
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
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.