R R Constructions Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
VC Hearing Mandatory Once Sought; NFAC Order Set Aside for Breach of Natural Justice – ITAT Pune (SMC)
The Pune SMC Bench of the ITAT, in R R Constructions vs. ITO, Pune (ITA No.2609/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18, order dated 18-12-2025), set aside the order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC after holding that failure to grant video conference (VC) hearing, despite a specific request by the Assessee, amounted to violation of principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had expressly requested a personal hearing through VC mode, but the CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the addition of ₹27.46 lakh u/s 68 without granting such hearing. Relying on the Madras High Court decision in C. Chellamuthu vs. Pr. CIT (NFAC) and the Bombay High Court ruling in Pico Capital (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the ITAT reiterated that once VC hearing is sought, granting the same is mandatory, and denial thereof vitiates the appellate order.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter for de-novo adjudication, with a specific direction to provide the Assessee an opportunity of video conference hearing. Since the matter was remanded on procedural grounds, the issues on merits relating to income enhancement and cash deposit addition were left open and unadjudicated. The appeal was thus partly allowed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 14.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 02.12.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1) The learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC, erred in passing an order confirming the addition made under section 68 when the detailed submission was made and a request for personal hearing through VC mode was also made, and the order was passed without granting an opportunity of VC hearing, thus violating the principle of natural justice. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect.
2) The authorities below erred in facts and circumstances and in law in assessing the income at Rs.3330120/- as against the returned income of Rs. 583570/-. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect.
3) The authorities below erred in facts and circumstances and in law in not accepting the source of deposit of cash and thereby making an addition of Rs.2746549/- u/s 68 of the act. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect.
4) The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, or raise any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”
2. At the outset of hearing, no one attended the hearing on behalf of the Assessee. No written submission or adjournment petition filed.
3. We have heard ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue. It is observed that Assessee had requested for Video Conference Hearing before the ld.CIT(A). However, it seems from the order of ld.CIT(A) that no opportunity of video conference was provided by ld.CIT(A).
4. We would like to refer to the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s decision in the case of C. Chellamuthu Vs. Principal Commissioner[NFAC] [2024] 158 taxmann.com 132 wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that providing opportunity through video conferencing once asked by assessee is mandatory. The relevant portion of the Hon’ble Madras High Court observations are reproduced as under :
“In the said Email communication is clearly mentioned that since it is high pitch assessment the petitioner has sought video conference hearing. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that it is clearly violation of principles of natural justice.”
4.1 Similarly, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pico Capital (P.) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 638 (Bombay) dated 07.01.2025 has held as under :
“9. In the additional affidavit filed by the Respondents, the contentions based on the failure of natural justice are dealt with in paragraph 6(e), which reads as follows: –
“6(e). In the March ending time, the assessee demanded hearing through video conferencing. In this regard, it is to submit that the hearing through video conferencing is available when the assessment proceedings are pending before the faceless assessing officer (FAO). In this case, as already mentioned, the proceedings have been transferred from faceless assessing officer (FAO) to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) on 20.02.2024. Hence, the facility of video conferencing was not available and the assessee was at liberty to approach the office of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) if personal hearing was required because the assessee has already been informed about the change of proceedings from FAO to JAO.”
10. Mr. Gandhi has invited our attention to Circular No.F.No.225/97/2021/ITA-II dated 6 September 2021 in the context of approval for the transfer of assessments/penalties proceedings to jurisdictional Assessing Officers. This Circular provides that the request for personal hearings shall generally be allowed to the assessee with the approval of the Range Head, mainly after the assessee has filed a written submission to the show cause notice. Personal hearings may be allowed for the assessee, preferably through video conference. If Video Conference is not technically feasible, personal hearings may be conducted in a designated area in the Income-Tax Office. The hearing proceedings may be recorded. Given this Circular, the defence raised, or the justification offered in paragraph 6(e) of the Respondents’ affidavit cannot be accepted.
11. In this case, though the assessment order was appealable, we have entertained this petition because a case of complete failure of natural justice was made out. No personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, and such denial was not for valid reasons.
12. On the above short ground, we set aside the impugned assessment order dated 26 March 2024 and remand the matter to the concerned Respondent to dispose of the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner following the law and after granting the Petitioner a personal hearing. The concerned Respondent should complete the assessment proceedings within three months of uploading this order on this Court’s website. Now that we have set aside the impugned assessment order dated 26 March 2024, the consequential demand notice and penalty notice based on this order are also set aside. However, all contentions of all parties are left open for consideration of the Assessing Officer in the first instance.”
5. Respectfully following the Hon’ble High Court, since the ld.CIT(A) has not granted opportunity of video conference as requested by assessee, the order of ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide assessee opportunity of video conference. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.
6. Since we have set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, Ground No.2 and 3 become academic in nature and dismissed as unadjudicated.
7. Ground No.4 is general in nature, does not need any adjudication, hence, Ground No.4 is dismissed.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18 December, 2025.
