Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee contended that due to communication gaps and the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, they could not effectively present their case before the lower appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from effectively presenting their case before the CIT(A)/NFAC due to communication gaps or procedural shortcomings, warranting a remand.
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 : 2018-19 Ajay Goel HUF, Vs Income Tax Officer, 673, Kishanpuri Baghpat Gate, Ward-1(1)(1), Meerut, U.P.-250002 Meerut, U.P.-250001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAIHA2724D Assessee by: Sh. Vineet Garg, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076862304(1) dated 10.06.2025, 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.
Ajay Goel HUF 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.