Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps and the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, the assessee could not effectively present their case.
Held
The Tribunal observed that communication gaps could not be ruled out and noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was effectively prevented from presenting their case before the lower appellate authority due to communication gaps and procedural issues, warranting restoration of the appeal.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ritu Singla, Vs Income Tax Officer, E-1st/22, Madangir, Ward-28(6), New Delhi-110062 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. EHLPS7354R Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Batra, Adv. & Sh. Kailash Khimani, CA Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/107130551(1) dated 17.10.2023, in proceedings u/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
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) for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.