Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an order that confirmed additions made by the AO without following due process. The assessee claimed they were not granted an opportunity for video conferencing and their submissions were not considered by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested video conferencing, but it was unavailable, and their submissions were not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by confirming additions without providing the assessee an opportunity for video conferencing and without considering their submissions.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 18.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the very outset, Ld. AR pressed Ground No. 3, wherein the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the additions made by AO without following the due process of law.
2 Tarille Corporation, Mumbai.
In this regard Ld.AR submitted that NFAC had not followed the due process of law as neither the opportunity of video conferencing was given nor the submissions made in the remand proceedings were considered by Ld. CIT(A) and hence in this way additions made by the AO were wrongly upheld.
Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee had made submissions before Ld. CIT(A) vide letter dated 03.07.2025 asking for the opportunity of video conferencing which is at paper book page No. 192 & 193. We further noticed that assessee had also placed on record the screen shot of letter dated 11.07.2025 stating that the Tab is unavailable on the portal. Therefore, in this way assessee was not granted opportunity of video conferencing. Apart from that while passing the appellate order, the Ld. CIT(A) had not considered the submissions made in the remand proceedings and the documents submitted by the assessee.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the opportunity of video conferencing was not provided the 3 Tarille Corporation, Mumbai. assessee and the submissions made in the remand proceedings and documents submitted were not considered. Hence the Bench is of the view that matter be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by considering the remand report, documents and request of the assessee on video conferencing on merits. The assessee shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.