JKB EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 13(2), NEW DELHI

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ for short] dated 20/02/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 96,03,350/-. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was issued by the A.O. and in response, the Assessee furnished details before the A.O. Thereafter assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12/12/2019 by making addition of Rs. 2,02,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposited during the demonization period as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 12/12/2019, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/02/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee.

The main grievance of the Assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the principals of natural justice in passing the order impugned. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal, has not provided video conferencing which was duly asked through written submissions by the Assessee. Further pointed out that, after filing the Appeal, the Assessee has duly complied with all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), written submissions and paper book were duly filed time to time however, the order impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, wherein the final notice has been servedjust five days before passing the order impugned, therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the Assessee and the written submissions have been considered while deciding the appeal, therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the matter of fact that the Assessee has sought for virtual hearing through video conference in order to explain the facts and position of the case to the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) neither rejected the said request not allowed for video conference. Apart from the same, the last notice has been claimed to have been received by the Assessee on 15/02/2024, wherein the date of hearing was mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) as 19/02/2024. The Assessee filed an application for adjourning the matter due to paucity of time, howeverthe order impugned came to be passed on 20/02/2024. Considering the above facts and circumstances, without going into the merit of the case, we deem it fit to restore the Appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to allow the request of the Assessee for virtual hearing in view of the ratio laid down by the Mumbai high Court in the case of Vimal Trading Vs. National Faceless Assessment in Writ Petition No. 12317/2022 dated 27/02/2025. Further direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.