Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals challenging the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and additions made under Section 68 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. A principal grievance was the denial of a personal hearing by the CIT(A) despite specific requests for video conferencing.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made a specific request for personal hearing via video conferencing and had submitted extensive documentation. Denial of such a hearing, especially when statutorily recognized, cannot be considered a mere procedural lapse.
Key Issues
Denial of personal hearing through video conferencing and improper consideration of material by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
147, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A‘ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH : The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate but identically dated orders passed on 21 February 2025 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out
In both the assessment years, the assessee has challenged the very validity of reopening under section 147 of the Act and has also assailed the additions made under section 68 amounting to Rs. 74,30,360 for assessment year 2017-18 and Rs. 6,30,000 for assessment year 2018-19. Apart from the jurisdictional and substantive challenges, a principal grievance raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT A has denied personal hearing despite a specific request having been made for such hearing through video conferencing. It has been submitted that the request for personal hearing was not merely oral but was expressly made in the written submissions filed before the first appellate authority. It has further been pointed out that the assessee had filed a detailed and voluminous paper book explaining each and every aspect of the matter, not only on the jurisdictional issue but also on merits, which according to the assessee has not been properly considered. On these premises, the learned counsel submitted that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT A with a direction to decide the appeals afresh after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing through video conferencing.
Per contra, the learned Senior Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the impugned orders and submitted that Aziz Sultanali Lalani the learned CIT A has decided the appeals on merits and, therefore, no interference is called for. It was contended that the appellate authority has examined the material available on record and has passed the orders in accordance with law.
However, on a careful consideration of the record, we find that the assessee had indeed made a specific and categorical request for grant of personal hearing through video conferencing and had also placed on record extensive material in the form of detailed paper books addressing both the jurisdictional challenge to the reopening as well as the merits of the additions. It is also evident that the issues involved are not routine or mechanical in nature but raise substantial questions requiring proper appreciation of facts, documents and legal submissions. In such circumstances, denial of a personal hearing, particularly when statutorily recognised and expressly sought, cannot be regarded as a mere procedural lapse. The right of hearing, including through video conferencing in faceless proceedings, is an integral facet of the principle of audi alteram partem, which constitutes the very foundation of fair adjudication. This safeguard cannot be diluted or rendered illusory, especially where the assessee has demonstrated due diligence by placing all relevant material on record and seeking an opportunity to explain the same.
In the interest of justice and to ensure that the first appellate proceedings culminate in a reasoned and comprehensive adjudication, we are of the considered view that Aziz Sultanali Lalani the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT A. The learned CIT A shall examine all evidences and documents already placed on record, as well as any further submissions that the assessee may seek to rely upon in accordance with law, and shall also grant the assessee a personal hearing through video conferencing, as specifically requested.
Accordingly, both the appeals are restored to the file of the learned CIT A for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 30th January, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 30/01/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai