2026 (7) TMI 1501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DGMENT REPORTABLE DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre - NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)') under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). 2. Facts narrated briefly are that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961, before the CIT(A) on 28.01.2020. 3. When the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') initiated penalty proceedings, the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as to whether a system/procedure is in place which provides an option to the appellant/assessee for virtual hearing before the Appellate Authority. 9. Today, Mr. Maratha, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, on instructions accepted the fact that the assessee had requested an opportunity of personal hearing to explain the facts of the case so also the fact that no link was communicated to the assessee. 10. In relation to notice of hearing, the report submitted by the Appellate Authority reveals that hearing notices under Section 250 of the Act of 1961 were issued on 04.12.2023, 12.12.2023, 05.01.2024, 30.08.2024, 11.09.2024 & 04.07.2025, and that the assessee participated in the appellate proceedings by filing adjournm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng, in response whereof, the assessee had, on some occasions, sought adjournments and on other occasion(s) had filed written submissions and replies. But concededly it had sought virtual hearing, which admittedly was not provided by the Appellate Authority (NFAC). 15. The Appellate Authority has not provided any video conference link or virtual hearing to the petitioner. Such approach of the Appellate Authority has led to miscarriage rather failure of justice. 16. As pointed out by Ms. Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, had the petitioner been given an opportunity of personal/virtual hearing, the petitioner could have perhaps better explained the nature of transaction i.e., (i) Disallowance of advances written of....