What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's rights and liabilities were not effectively adjudicated on merits due to the procedural issues in the faceless regime. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeals were migrated to the faceless regime (NFAC) after initial physical submissions were made to the CIT(A). The assessee claimed they could not represent themselves effectively due to lack of proper notice under the faceless system.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was effectively heard and their submissions considered under the faceless appeal regime, and if not, whether the case should be remanded for de novo adjudication.

Devi Construction Company Pvt Ltd vs ACIT | ITAT Pune 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke

Pronounced: 24/04/2023

बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commission of Income Tax Circle-1(2), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri B. Koteswara Rao & Deepali Kalbandhe सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH; This bunch of four appeals of the assessee for the aforestated assessment years [for short “AY”] is directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short “NFAC”] dt. 26/12/2022 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”].

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4

Devi Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., to 173/PUN/2023 2. Since the issue involved in this bunch of appeals is identical, with the agreement of parties hereto, are heard together for being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. Consequently the adjudication in lead case ITA No.170/PN/23 laid hereafter shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining three appeals.

At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR inviting our attention to the order of Ld. FAA submitted that, the initial appeal in this impugned case was filed physically before jurisdictional Ld. CIT(A), Pune and the relevant submissions in support thereof were duly made in physical mode. However subsequent to migration of appeal to the faceless regime i.e. to Ld. NFAC, the assessee could not represent for the want of effective service of notice. For the reason the Ld. AR tendered an oral request praying for remand to Ld. NFAC. Per contra the Ld. Senior DR without disputing the facts, has contended that under faceless regime the appellant did ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4

Devi Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., to 173/PUN/2023 neither respond to any of the notices served to it nor had brought to the notice of Ld. NFAC that in its case physical submissions on earlier occasions were made before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently the Ld. NFAC had no choice but to confirm the finding of Ld. AO in the absence of deprecative material on record. Such conscious failure on the part of appellant is attributable to the conduct of non-persuasion, hence on this ground alone the appeal merits for dismissal.

After hearing rival contentions, perused the material placed on record in light of Rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 and we find that admittedly appellant adduced evidential documents before then Ld. CIT(A) when the case was partially heard in physical mode prior to its migration to faceless regime. However said submission remained unattended by the Ld. NFAC for the reason that neither the department taken any step to upload the submission for consideration nor the appellant brought to its notice, that any such material were submitted to its ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

Devi Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., to 173/PUN/2023 predecessor faced with the situation, the Ld. FAA culminated the proceedings ex-parte without effectively determining the rights and liabilities of either party on merits.

5. Since the rights and liabilities in the extent appeal have not been effectively dealt on merits, in all the fairness, without commenting on merits we deem it fit to remand the case back to the file of the Ld. NFAC for de- novo adjudication, ergo we order accordingly.

In result, all four appeals of the appellant assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Monday 24th day of April, 2023.

-S/d- -S/d- S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 01st day of May, 2023. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi (India) 4. The CIT -1, Pune (MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘A’, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. Ashwini 2:2 आिेश नुस र / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4

DEVI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments