ITAT Kolkata: Errors in Faceless Assessments Shouldn’t Hinder Efficient Administration

The recent case of Abhishek Shaw Vs ITO, adjudicated by the Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), reaches into the implications of setbacks within the faceless assessment regime. The same blog analyses the proceedings analyses the arguments delivered, and estimates the decision of ITAT.

Detailed Analysis In Case of Abhishek Shaw

The petition incurred via the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, order against the assessment order by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-50(6), Kolkata, under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The appellant raised concerns for the ex-parte character of the plea order issued via the Ld. CIT(A) without regarding the adjournment request. The foundations for the plea are the procedural peculiarities and the addition of Rs.11,51,000/- because of cash deposits at the time of demonetization period.

Even in the absence of the taxpayers at the time of the assessment and appellate proceedings, the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) acknowledged the issues that emerged from the nascent faceless assessment regime.

ITAT considering the teething problems, stressed the significance of not prejudicing effective administration because of the procedural lapses. It supported a lenient policy, acknowledging the originality of the faceless regime.

The decision of the ITAT to remit the case back to the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment specified the requirement for an appropriate and comprehensive evaluation. It asks the AO to give the taxpayers a reasonable chance for representation and submission, ensuring procedural fairness.

Related News:- Kolkata ITAT Cancels the Addition Made by AO Without Examine Expenditure Nature

Closure: In conclusion, the Abhishek Shaw Vs ITO case serves as a significant precedent in navigating the complexities of the evolving faceless assessment framework.

While addressing procedural lapses, the ITAT prioritized the principles of fairness and effective administration. This ruling underscores the importance of balancing technological advancements with procedural integrity in tax adjudication processes.