Case Law Details
Gulshan Kukreja Vs PCIT (ITAT Dehradun)
The ITAT Dehradun condoned a delay of 2,580 days in filing the appeal for AY 2013-14, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The assessee submitted that communication gaps at various levels prevented the presentation of all relevant facts before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue supported the additions sustained by the lower authority. The Tribunal observed that communication gaps in the context of the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be entirely ruled out. In the interest of justice, it restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, directing disposal after granting three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DEHRADUN
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057494031(1), dated 30.10.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 2580 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
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, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue vehemently supports the learned lower authority’s action making the addition(s) herein on merits.
4. 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. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for her afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th June, 2026
Author Bio
