Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the reassessment order. The hearing was adjourned multiple times due to medical requests from the assessee and the non-appointment of the CIT-DR. The assessee argued that they were not provided with a video hearing as per the Faceless Appeals Scheme, despite stating the need for an opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal noted that this was the 16th hearing and the appeal was adjourned multiple times. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not offered a video hearing despite requesting it. Therefore, to provide natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide a video hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an appellate order without providing a video hearing as per the Faceless Appeals Scheme, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 145, 69, 36(1)(iii), 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar
Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd. The DCIT 505, 5th Floor, Inizio, Ward-4(1)(1), Gracious Road, Vs Ahmedabad Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400069 PAN: AACCS7342A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Adjournment Application filed (None) Revenue Represented: Adjournment Application filed. Date of hearing : 30-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-04-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14.
A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd. i vs. DCIT
Today is the 16th time of hearing of this appeal. Both the parties sought for adjournment on account of medical request by the assessee and non-appointment of Ld.CIT-DR by the Department.
We have perused the Grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee are 1. In-law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeal) NFAC has passed the appellate order without providing video hearing as provided in Faceless Appeals Scheme more particularly when Appellant has stated that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided before disposing of the its appeal.
2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the submissions made by appellant is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the order of learned AO is passed in breach of natural justice and thus deserved to be quashed and set-aside.
In law and in the facts of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC is very cryptic and without independent application of mind and without dealing with the submissions of the appellant and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeal) NFAC as well as the learned AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant under section 145 of the Act without any proper justification.
In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has erred in confirming of alleged difference in closing stock as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.
In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has erred in not appreciating the fact that the learned AO has alleged overvaluation of stock and on such allegations section 69 cannot be invoked unless the learned AO alleges that such stock A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd. i vs. DCIT was found in excess that what was recorded in the books of accounts and without taking any physical verification.
8. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC had erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,34,933/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
9. Without prejudice to above, in law and in the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234A/B/C/D.
10. Without prejudice to above, in law and in the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
4. Since as per Ground no. 1, the assessee was not offered Video hearing to explain its case in spite of filing of written submissions. Therefore in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to setaside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give proper Video hearing as provided in Faceless Appeals Scheme to the assessee to explain its case. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final opportunity of Video hearing and conduct its appeal.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30-04-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 30/04/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 Saumil Impex Pvt. Ltd. i vs. DCIT