Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals arise from an order passed by the CIT(A) concerning proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, prevented them from presenting their case effectively.
Held
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps during 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 appeals and restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case effectively due to communication gaps during virtual hearings, necessitating a fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
147, 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: 2013-14 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Bhatia Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Village Dhooma, Saragaon, P.O. Central Circle-8, Saragaon, Bilaspur, New Delhi-110055 Chhattisgarh-495224 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACB7021M Assessee by : Sh. Piyush Singh, Adv. & Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals & 2188/Del/2025, for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2015-16, arise against the CIT(A), Delhi-25’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072159441 & 1072159524(1) dated 14.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
& 2188/Del/2025 Bhatia Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd. 3. 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).
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 appeals 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.