Virsinh Chandrashekar Jadhavrao Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The assessee appealed against the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC for AY 2019-20. The assessee had originally filed a return declaring income of ₹34,38,160. Based on departmental information regarding purchase of immovable property valued at ₹40,99,000, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 on 27.03.2023. As the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice or comply with notices under Section 142(1) and show cause notices, the Assessing Officer completed an ex parte assessment under Sections 147, 144 and 144B, making an addition of ₹40,99,000 under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the addition.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised several grounds challenging the reopening, jurisdiction, approval under Section 151, reliance on third-party survey material, denial of cross-examination, addition under Section 69, charging of interest, and the validity of reassessment proceedings. The assessee also specifically contended that despite a written request dated 29.08.2024 seeking a hearing through video conferencing, the CIT(A)/NFAC disposed of the appeal without granting such hearing.
The Tribunal examined the CBDT Notification dated 28.12.2021 governing the Faceless Appeal Scheme, particularly paragraph 12 and paragraphs 12.3 and 12.4, which provide that where an appellant requests a personal hearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall allow the request and conduct the hearing through video conferencing or video telephony. The Tribunal found it undisputed that the assessee had requested a video conferencing hearing but that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order without considering the request.
