Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order of CIT(A) concerning proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not present all facts effectively.
Held
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting facts due to communication gaps, and if the lower appellate order complied with statutory requirements for adjudication.
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3), 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 Ayush Chanana, Vs DCIT, H. No. 60, Prem Vatika, Mission Central Circle-8, Chompound, PS Sadar, New Delhi-110055 Saharanpur, U.P.-247001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AREPC1153B Assessee by : Sh. Akshit Goel, CA Revenue by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi’s in case No. 24/10478/16-17, order dated 03.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.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
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.