BUSYBEES LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR-1(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the failure to provide a personal hearing through video conferencing, when requested by the assessee, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. This was based on the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in C. Chellamuthu Vs. Principal Commissioner[NFAC] and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Pico Capital Private Limited Vs. Dy. CIT, which held that providing a hearing through video conferencing upon an assessee's request is mandatory. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. For AY 2022-23, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. The ratio decidendi is that a denial of a requested video conference hearing is a breach of natural justice, requiring a fresh adjudication. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Busybees Logistics Solutions Private Limited, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 419/PUN/2026 and 420/PUN/2026) against the orders of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2022-23, respectively. These orders stemmed from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were heard together. For AY 2018-19, the assessee contended that a request for a personal hearing through video conferencing made during assessment proceedings was not responded to by the Assessing Officer. For AY 2022-23, a similar request for virtual hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was allegedly not granted. The revenue, represented by the Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1), Pune, was the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the failure to provide a personal hearing through video conferencing, when requested by the assessee during assessment proceedings, violates the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the assessment order? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the failure to grant a virtual hearing, when requested by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), violates the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the appellate order? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that requests for personal hearings via video conferencing were made and not acted upon by the Assessing Officer (for AY 2018-19) and the Ld. CIT(A) (for AY 2022-23). The assessee relied on screenshots from the Income Tax Portal demonstrating these requests. The assessee cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in C. Chellamuthu Vs. Principal Commissioner[NFAC] and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pico Capital Private Limited Vs. Dy. CIT to support the mandatory nature of providing video conferencing hearings upon request. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's representative initially stated a desire to verify facts but was directed to page 62 of the paper book. No specific arguments against the assessee's contentions or the cited precedents were recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gattani
For Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete &, Shri Rajesh Haladkar

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 and 2022-23 on 11.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

2.

Since, the issue involved is same, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

ITA Nos.419 & 420/PUN/2026 3. First, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No. 419/PUN/2026 for AY 2018-19.

Findings and Analysis :

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the Ld. AR submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had made a request for personal hearing through Video Conferencing. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page 62 of the paper book which is screen shot obtained by the assessee to demonstrate the assessee’s request for personal hearing. The same is scanned and reproduced here as under :

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the said request was not responded by the Assessing Officer (AO).

6.

The Ld. DR stated that he will like to verify the facts, however, we invited his attention to page 62 of the paper book which was screen short obtained from the Income Tax Portal.

ITA Nos.419 & 420/PUN/2026 7. In this context, it is noted that the assessee had made request during the assessment proceedings for Video Conferencing which was not provided to the assessee. 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.”

8.

Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pico Capital Private Limited Vs. Dy. CIT, (2025) 170 taxmann.com 638 (Bom.).

9.

Thus, the Hon’ble High Court has held that once the request was made by the assessee for personal hearing then it is mandatory for the AO to provide personal hearing through Video Conferencing or any other appropriate mode. Accordingly, we set aside the assessment order to the AO for de- novo adjudication after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall provide all the necessary documents. Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No. 419/PUN/2026 for AY 2018-19 is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No. 420/PUN/2026, AY 2022-23

10.

In this case, similarly the Ld. AR brought to our attention that the assessee had made request for virtual hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not granted to the assessee. The

ITA Nos.419 & 420/PUN/2026

assessee invited our attention to page 117 of the paper book wherein vide letter, the assessee has requested for Video Conferencing. Since, Video Conferencing has not been provided by the Ld. CIT(A), we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall file all the necessary details. Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No. 420/PUN/2026 for AY 2022-23 is allowed for statistical purpose.

11.

To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 16-10-2026 Ravi Kumar आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar More // True Copy // More Date: 2026.10.24 17:12:05 Assistant Registrar +05'30' आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →