Bank of India v. ACIT

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 250

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• 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…
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

[Coram: Pramod Kumar, Vice President and, Aby T Varkey Judicial Member] ITA No.: 112/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2010-11 Bank of India …………………….. Appellant 8th floor, Star House, C 5 G Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACB0472C]

ITA No.: 203/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai ………………...……..Appellant

Appearances: C Naresh, for the assessee Dr Mahesh Akhade, for the revenue

2. When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to a fundamental issue, with respect to the denial of opportunity to the assessee to present the case through video conferencing, raised in the first ground of appeal of the assessee. It was also pointed out that in the event of the assessee succeeding on this point, all

other issues raised in the cross-appeals will be rendered infructuous. We are thus urged to take a call on this foundational issue first. Learned Departmental Representative does not oppose this prayer. With the consent of the parties, therefore, we take up this ground of appeal first. The related grievance raised by the assessee is as follows:

Appellant / assessee submissions

2. When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to a fundamental issue, with respect to the denial of opportunity to the assessee to present the case through video conferencing, raised in the first ground of appeal of the assessee. It was also pointed out that in the event of the assessee succeeding on this point, all

3. Learned counsel submits a copy of the proceeding sheet (acknowledgement no. 736267181261021; communication reference ID 100037386143) which takes note of the assessee‟s submission dated 17th August 2021 to the effect “Please consider the response uploaded. We have earlier uploaded our response on 10.03.2021 (screenshot attached for your ready reference) Kindly consider the same and allow us the opportunity of being heard through video conferencing mode”. It is submitted that despite this specific request, and without disposing of the same, the assessee was declined an opportunity of hearing through the video conferencing, and the NFAC simply proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material on record. Learned counsel then invites our attention to the Hon‟ble Madras High Court‟s judgment in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre [(2022) 442 ITR 279 (Madras)] in support of the contention that when such an opportunity of video conferencing is declined, without assigning reason, and the order is passed on the basis of material on record, the resultant order is required to be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the NFAC for an…

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

5. We find that, in terms of rule 12(2) of the National Faceless Appeals Scheme 2020, “(t)he appellant or his authorised representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the appeal unit under this Scheme”, and under rule 12(3) “(t)he Chief Commissioner or the Director-General, in charge of the Regional Faceless Appeal Centre, under which the concerned appeal unit is set up, may approve the request for personal hearing referred to in sub-paragraph (2)” in certain circumstances. It is through this framework of rules that video conferencing, as was the permissible mode for making submissions, was sought. As to what should be such circumstances, the call once again was to be taken by the Chief Commissioner or the Director-General, with the prior approval of the Board.

6. Once a request is made for the hearing through video conferencing, in the course of the faceless appellate proceedings, in our considered view, it was incumbent upon the Chief

Operative decision and relief

3. Learned counsel submits a copy of the proceeding sheet (acknowledgement no. 736267181261021; communication reference ID 100037386143) which takes note of the assessee‟s submission dated 17th August 2021 to the effect “Please consider the response uploaded. We have earlier uploaded our response on 10.03.2021 (screenshot attached for your ready reference) Kindly consider the same and allow us the opportunity of being heard through video conferencing mode”. It is submitted that despite this specific request, and without disposing of the same, the assessee was declined an opportunity of hearing through the video conferencing, and the NFAC simply proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material on record. Learned counsel then invites our attention to the Hon‟ble Madras High Court‟s judgment in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre [(2022) 442 ITR 279 (Madras)] in support of the contention that when such an opportunity of video conferencing is declined, without assigning reason, and the order is passed on the basis of material on record, the resultant order is required to be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the NFAC for an…

11. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 30th day of June 2022.

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses 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…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with 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… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• 250 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• Agreeko Energy Rental Vs DCIT - ITAT Pune
• BASHIR AHMAD SOFI V ITO WARD 1 - ITAT Amritsar
• Chennai Port Authority v. NFAC - Madras High Court

Different outcome / possible distinction

• PCIT Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Limited - Dismissed
• Greatship (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court) - Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all judgments
• Income-tax study guide

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY