AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070637848(1) dated 26.11.2024, in proceedings u/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 vario us levels, the assessee could not appear to plead and prove all the relevant facts in the assessment procee dings; and, therefore, he chose to file his relevant additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1963 which has been wrongly rejected in the lower appellate pro ceedings. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s additional evidence herein very much goes to the root of the matter.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that possibility of some communicatio n gaps at various levels in such an instance of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be altogether ruled out. T his is indeed coupled with the fact that there is also no effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned lower appellate order stipulating points of deter mination to be framed followed by a detaile d adjudication there upon. It is there fore dee med 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, after admission of the above additional evidence , within three effective opportunities of hear ing at the appellant’s risk and respo nsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accor dingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.