What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case. Both impugned orders were set aside.

The appeals for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 had identical facts, arising from orders of the CIT(A) confirming additions made by the AO on best judgment basis for want of assessee's reply/compliance. The assessee was aggrieved by these confirmations.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for hearing and substantiating its case before the AO due to issues in the faceless assessment regime.

Ramit Kuthiala, Shimla vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH CHANDIGARH.

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 775/CHANDI/2024

ITA No. 776/CHANDI/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

Aforesaid appeals has identical facts. First, we take up appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 which arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 144 of the Act on 19-12-2018. In the assessment order, Ld. AO, on best judgment basis, made addition of excess cash for Rs.117.37 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same for want of any reply from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the possibility of communication gaps during faceless regime, we deem it fit to afford another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case before Ld. AO. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the assessment is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case forthwith.

Similar are the facts in AY 2017-18. The Ld. AO made various additions and assessed income at Rs.294.06 Lacs which stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) for want of any compliance from the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Facts being pari-materia the same, the assessment for this year also stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for de novo assessment on similar lines.

Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20-05-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 20-05-2025. आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

RAMIT KUTHIALA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2,SHIMLA, SHIMLA

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