What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity for virtual hearing is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A) was filed for AY 2017-18. The assessee contended that the appellate authority failed to provide an opportunity for a virtual hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether denial of virtual hearing opportunity to the assessee by the appellate authority violates the principles of natural justice.

Mr. Kushal Nitinchandra Mehta vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

Before: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sathe, JCIT

Hearing: 06/04/2026Pronounced: 13/04/2026

आदेश/ ORDER PER DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for AY 2017-18 passed by Addl./JCIT (A) 2 Vadodara on 26/09/2025.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

ITA No.2746/PUN/2025 2.1 At the outset Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee Mr. Bhuvanesh Kankani submitted that Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has not provided opportunity of Virtual Hearing in Appeal Proceedings which is violation of Natural Justice. Ld.AR relied on decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ms.Masila vs CIT176 taxmann.com280dated 16/06/2025. Ld.AR filed copy of screen shot obtained from the portal to demonstrate that Appellate Authority has not provided opportunity of Virtual Hearing.

Ld. Departmental Representative has not disputed the fact.

In this context, we would like to refer to the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s decision in the case of C.Chellamuthu Vs. Principal Commissioner[NFAC] [2024] 158 taxmann.com 132 wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that providing opportunity through video conferencing once asked by assessee is mandatory. The relevant portion of the Hon’ble Madras High Court observations are reproduced as under : “In the said Email communication is clearly mentioned that since it is high pitch assessment the petitioner has sought video conference hearing. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that it is clearly violation of principles of natural justice.” 4.1. Similarly in the case of Ms. Masila vs CIT 176 taxmann.com 280(Madras) Hon’ble Madras High Court has held as under :

Quote, “ In the present case , no notice was issued communicating the personal hearing opportunity and without providing personal hearing opportunity, the impugned orders in appeal came to be passed , which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence this court is

ITA No.2746/PUN/2025 inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 19.03.2025….” Unquote.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, as assessee was denied opportunity of virtual hearing, we set-aside the order u/s 250 of the Act for de-novo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A)/Addl.CIT(A)/JCIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for Statistical Purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 13th April, 2026/ SGR आदेश की प्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकरअपऩलऩयअनर्करण, “एस एम सऩ” बेंच, पपणे / 5. DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,

/ / TRUE COPY / / सहधयक रनिस्ट्रधर /Assistant Registrar आयकरअपऩलऩयअनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. 3

MR. KUSHAL NITINCHANDRA MEHTA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), 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