S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Faceless Appeal Scheme-Video Conference-Natural justice-Opportunity for personal hearing not granted-Retrospective effect-Order set aside and remanded back. [S. 250(6B), National Faceless Appeals Scheme 2020, Rule 12(2), 12(3), 13(2)]
Where the assessee specifically requested for an opportunity of hearing through the video conferencing, and the NFAC declined the same and simply proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material on record. Department contended that under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2020, the granting of opportunity through video conferencing was not mandatory, and it was at the sole discretion of the authority concerned to grant or not to grant the video conferencing hearing. Departmental Representative vehemently supports the stand of the NFAC. Honourable Tribunal also observed that in view of the subsequent development by way of a notification of the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, which has come into effect from 28th December 2021 in supersession of the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2020, even a specific call on the request for video conferencing hearing may is not really necessary. Honourable Tribunal held it was fit and proper to remit the matter to the first appellate authority after giving an opportunity for a personal hearing, in terms of rule 12 of the Faceless Appeals Rules, 2021, for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. Referred, Ramco Cements Ltd v. NFAC [(2022) 442 ITR 279 (Mad.)(HC), CIT v. Vatika Townships Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396, Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 6 SCC 286. (ITA 112/Mum/2022 dated June 30, 2022) Bench ‘B’ (AY. 2010-11)
Bank of India v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Hon’ble Shri Aby T Varkey Judicial Member]