I asked NFAC for a video hearing in my appeal and never got a link. Can that order stand?
No. A virtual hearing is mandatory once it is specifically requested in faceless appellate proceedings, and passing the appellate order without ever providing the video-conference link violated natural justice. The order was set aside, the appeal restored for a proper virtual hearing, and the consequential penalty orders under ss.271AAC(1) and 270A were quashed with it.
Decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court (Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.)) on 2026-07-21, reported as [2026] 188 taxmann.com 881 (Delhi); W.P.(C) No. 4594 of 2026 and CM Appl. Nos. 22433 and 22434 of 2026; 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 729. It bears on section 250, section 270A, section 271AAC(1), section 68, section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Faceless Assessment & Appeals and Appeals matters.
It carries the personal-hearing requirement across from faceless assessment to the faceless appeal. Written submissions were held to be no substitute for an oral or virtual hearing, and the fact that video-conferencing had been available during the assessment proceedings removed any claim of practical impediment. The quashing of the penalty orders as consequential is the part worth noting — attacking the appellate order can take the penalties with it.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner appealed on 28 January 2020 against an assessment of 30 December 2019 under s.143(3), disputing among other things the disallowance of advances written off of Rs 1,27,92,250 and an addition of advances under s.68 of Rs 20,70,00,000. Hearing notices under s.250 were issued by the NFAC on six dates between 4 December 2023 and 4 July 2025, and the petitioner took part by seeking adjournments and filing written submissions, having asked for a personal or virtual hearing. The appeal was decided against it on 28 July 2025, but the petitioner did not learn of that until the Assessing Officer, in penalty proceedings, told it the appeal had been rejected; it then downloaded the order from the portal. Penalty orders under s.271AAC(1) and s.270A followed on 16 and 18 March 2026. On the earlier date of hearing the Court directed the department to take instructions on whether any system exists giving an appellant the option of a virtual hearing, and counsel for the department accepted on instructions that a personal hearing had been requested and that no link had been communicated.
The writ petition was allowed. Appellate proceedings and the hearing of an appeal presuppose a hearing of the assessee or its authorised representative, physically or in virtual mode; consideration of written submissions or the memorandum of appeal can in no manner substitute for an oral or personal hearing, and the notices issued without ever fixing such a hearing were illusory. The petitioner had asked for a virtual hearing and admittedly none was given, which led to a miscarriage — rather, a failure — of justice (paras 14 and 15). The appellate order of 28 July 2025 was set aside and the appeal restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC, which must issue a fresh notice and provide a video-conference link, or failing that join the petitioner by any other video mode (para 18). The consequential penalty orders were quashed, but the Court left the Assessing Officer free to pass fresh orders if required once the appeal is decided (para 19). It further directed the Chairman of the CBDT and the Principal Chief Commissioner (NFAC) to ensure within three months that the video-conferencing facility available in assessment proceedings is made available in appellate proceedings under s.250, if it is not already, so that an appellant asking for it gets it as a matter of right, and ordered a copy of the order sent to them for compliance (paras 20 and 21).
The Court's route is short and cites no authority. The department's position was that under the faceless regime there is perhaps no face-to-face hearing at all, and that the written submissions had been considered, which satisfied natural justice. The Court rejected the premise: the faceless format masks the identity of the authority, it does not remove the hearing, and a hearing may be face to face or with the face of the authority masked or behind a curtain, but written material cannot take its place (para 14). Notices of hearing that never lead to a fixed date for oral or virtual hearing become illusory, whatever the assessee filed in response. The department having conceded that a hearing was asked for and no link sent, the Court found a failure of justice without needing to assess prejudice in any detail, observing only that with a hearing the petitioner might have explained the two transactions better and that various issues can be explained with the help of personal or virtual assistance (paras 15 to 17).
Consideration of written submissions or memo of appeal, can in no manner, substitute the oral or personal hearing.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. A virtual hearing is mandatory once it is specifically requested in faceless appellate proceedings, and passing the appellate order without ever providing the video-conference link violated natural justice. The order was set aside, the appeal restored for a proper virtual hearing, and the consequential penalty orders under ss.271AAC(1) and 270A were quashed with it. This was decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court (Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.)) and bears on section 250, section 270A, section 271AAC(1), section 68, section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2026] 188 taxmann.com 881 (Delhi); W.P.(C) No. 4594 of 2026 and CM Appl. Nos. 22433 and 22434 of 2026; 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 729. It carries the personal-hearing requirement across from faceless assessment to the faceless appeal. Written submissions were held to be no substitute for an oral or virtual hearing, and the fact that video-conferencing had been available during the assessment proceedings removed any claim of practical impediment. The quashing of the penalty orders as consequential is the part worth noting — attacking the appellate order can take the penalties with it. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask for the video-conference hearing in writing in the appeal and repeat the request in each later submission, keeping the acknowledgements.
The petitioner appealed on 28 January 2020 against an assessment of 30 December 2019 under s.143(3), disputing among other things the disallowance of advances written off of Rs 1,27,92,250 and an addition of advances under s.68 of Rs 20,70,00,000. Hearing notices under s.250 were issued by the NFAC on six dates between 4 December 2023 and 4 July 2025, and the petitioner took part by seeking adjournments and filing written submissions, having asked for a personal or virtual hearing. The appeal was decided against it on 28 July 2025, but the petitioner did not learn of that until the Assessing Officer, in penalty proceedings, told it the appeal had been rejected; it then downloaded the order from the portal. Penalty orders under s.271AAC(1) and s.270A followed on 16 and 18 March 2026. On the earlier date of hearing the Court directed the department to take instructions on whether any system exists giving an appellant the option of a virtual hearing, and counsel for the department accepted on instructions that a personal hearing had been requested and that no link had been communicated. The matter was decided on 2026-07-21 by the High Court (Delhi High Court (Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed. Appellate proceedings and the hearing of an appeal presuppose a hearing of the assessee or its authorised representative, physically or in virtual mode; consideration of written submissions or the memorandum of appeal can in no manner substitute for an oral or personal hearing, and the notices issued without ever fixing such a hearing were illusory. The petitioner had asked for a virtual hearing and admittedly none was given, which led to a miscarriage — rather, a failure — of justice (paras 14 and 15). The appellate order of 28 July 2025 was set aside and the appeal restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC, which must issue a fresh notice and provide a video-conference link, or failing that join the petitioner by any other video mode (para 18). The consequential penalty orders were quashed, but the Court left the Assessing Officer free to pass fresh orders if required once the appeal is decided (para 19). It further directed the Chairman of the CBDT and the Principal Chief Commissioner (NFAC) to ensure within three months that the video-conferencing facility available in assessment proceedings is made available in appellate proceedings under s.250, if it is not already, so that an appellant asking for it gets it as a matter of right, and ordered a copy of the order sent to them for compliance (paras 20 and 21).
The Court's route is short and cites no authority. The department's position was that under the faceless regime there is perhaps no face-to-face hearing at all, and that the written submissions had been considered, which satisfied natural justice. The Court rejected the premise: the faceless format masks the identity of the authority, it does not remove the hearing, and a hearing may be face to face or with the face of the authority masked or behind a curtain, but written material cannot take its place (para 14). Notices of hearing that never lead to a fixed date for oral or virtual hearing become illusory, whatever the assessee filed in response. The department having conceded that a hearing was asked for and no link sent, the Court found a failure of justice without needing to assess prejudice in any detail, observing only that with a hearing the petitioner might have explained the two transactions better and that various issues can be explained with the help of personal or virtual assistance (paras 15 to 17). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Consideration of written submissions or memo of appeal, can in no manner, substitute the oral or personal hearing."
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-07-21 and is reported as [2026] 188 taxmann.com 881 (Delhi); W.P.(C) No. 4594 of 2026 and CM Appl. Nos. 22433 and 22434 of 2026; 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 729. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 250, section 270A, section 271AAC(1), section 68, section 143(3), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The writ petition was allowed. Appellate proceedings and the hearing of an appeal presuppose a hearing of the assessee or its authorised representative, physically or in virtual mode; consideration of written submissions or the memorandum of appeal can in no manner substitute for an oral or personal hearing, and the notices issued without ever fixing such a hearing were illusory. The petitioner had asked for a virtual hearing and admittedly none was given, which led to a miscarriage — rather, a failure — of justice (paras 14 and 15). The appellate order of 28 July 2025 was set aside and the appeal restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC, which must issue a fresh notice and provide a video-conference link, or failing that join the petitioner by any other video mode (para 18). The consequential penalty orders were quashed, but the Court left the Assessing Officer free to pass fresh orders if required once the appeal is decided (para 19). It further directed the Chairman of the CBDT and the Principal Chief Commissioner (NFAC) to ensure within three months that the video-conferencing facility available in assessment proceedings is made available in appellate proceedings under s.250, if it is not already, so that an appellant asking for it gets it as a matter of right, and ordered a copy of the order sent to them for compliance (paras 20 and 21). It arises in Faceless Assessment & Appeals and Appeals matters, on section 250, section 270A, section 271AAC(1), section 68, section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Delhi High Court (Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Record, with dates, that no link was ever issued, ideally before the appellate order is passed. Where penalty orders were passed on the additions under appeal, challenge them as consequential in the same petition.
Validity check could not be completed. Decided 21 July 2026 and too recent for any later treatment; none was found on the full read, and the report carries no citator note or case review. The judgment cites no earlier decision of any court — there is no cases-referred block — so it cannot be said to rest on, or to have been tested against, the existing line on personal hearing under s.144B. Its practical significance may lie less in its ratio than in the direction at para 20 requiring the CBDT and the NFAC to make video conferencing available in s.250 appeals within three months. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order itself has now been read and the bench, date and petition number the entry carried are confirmed. Two qualifications. The judgment cites no authority and contains no discussion of the existing case law on personal hearing in faceless assessment, so it stands on its own reasoning and on the department's concession that a hearing was asked for and no link sent. And the relief is procedural: the appeal goes back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to be heard afresh, and although the two penalty orders were quashed the Assessing Officer was expressly left free to pass fresh ones once the appeal is decided. The direction to the CBDT Chairman and the Principal Chief Commissioner (NFAC) to make video conferencing available in s.250 appeals within three months is the part of the order that reaches beyond this assessee. Too recent for appellate treatment, and none was found. Whether the CBDT and the NFAC have complied with the three-month direction at para 20 is not established. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was allowed. Appellate proceedings and the hearing of an appeal presuppose a hearing of the assessee or its authorised representative, physically or in virtual mode; consideration of written submissions or the memorandum of appeal can in no manner substitute for an oral or personal hearing, and the notices issued without ever fixing such a hearing were illusory. The petitioner had asked for a virtual hearing and admittedly none was given, which led to a miscarriage — rather, a failure — of justice (paras 14 and 15). The appellate order of 28 July 2025 was set aside and the appeal restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC, which must issue a fresh notice and provide a video-conference link, or failing that join the petitioner by any other video mode (para 18). The consequential penalty orders were quashed, but the Court left the Assessing Officer free to pass fresh orders if required once the appeal is decided (para 19). It further directed the Chairman of the CBDT and the Principal Chief Commissioner (NFAC) to ensure within three months that the video-conferencing facility available in assessment proceedings is made available in appellate proceedings under s.250, if it is not already, so that an appellant asking for it gets it as a matter of right, and ordered a copy of the order sent to them for compliance (paras 20 and 21).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
You have a document that says so. Does that settle it?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?