Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's four appeals were filed against the orders of the CIT(A). The assessee submitted that due to communication gaps, they could not effectively present their case and prove relevant facts. Additionally, there was a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
Held
The Tribunal restored all four appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's submission about communication gaps and the observed non-compliance with statutory provisions in the lower appellate order.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
The instant batch of four appeals pertains to the single assessee herein namely, Four Star Hospitalities LLP. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
Sl. ITA Nos. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Order passed Proceedings No. against u/s 1. 1792/Del/2025 2018-19 Four Star Addl. CIT CIT(A)-28, New 271DA Hos pitalities Delhi, DIN & order LLP No.ITBA/APL/M/250/ 2024-25 / 1073816544(1) Dated 28.02.2025 2. 1793/Del/2025 2018-19 Four Star Addl. CIT CIT(A)-28, New 271E Hos pitalities Delhi, LLP DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/ 2024-25 / 1073277823(1) Dated 14.02.2025 to 1795/Del/2025 Four Star Hospitalities LLP 3. 1794/Del/2025 2018-19 Four Star Addl. CIT CIT(A)-28, New 271D Hos pitalities Delhi, LLP DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/ 2024-25 / 1073277618(1) Dated 14.02.2025 4. 1795/Del/2025 2019-20 Four Star Addl. CIT CIT(A)-28, New 271DA Hos pitalities Delhi, LLP DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/ 2024-25 / 1073817699(1) Dated 28.02.2025
Heard both the parties at length. Case files 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, the corresponding mitigating circumstances involving cash payments and loan herewith etc. in both the lower proceedings and therefore, in the larger interest of justice met in case, the matter(s) be restored back to the Assessing Officer.
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 all four appeals back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of