High Vista Buildcon Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Vikram Electric Equipment Pvt Ltd) vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi & Ors.

$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 21 July, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 4594/2026, CM APPL. 22433/2026 & CM APPL.
22434/2026
HIGH VISTA BUILDCON PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS
VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT PVT LTD) .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Aditya Bali & Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC, with
Mr.Apoorv Agarwal & Mr.Viplav
Acharya, JSCs, Ms. Nupur Sharma,
Ms.Muskaan Goel & Mr.Himanshu
Gaur, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE
DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
28.07.2025 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (National
Faceless Appeal Centre - NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as ‘ CIT(A)’ ) under
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act of
1961 ’).
2. Facts narrated briefly are that the petitioner had preferred an appeal
against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed under Section 143(3) of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:23.07.2026
11:40:35
W.P.(C) 4594/2026 Page 1 of 5

the Act of 1961, before the CIT(A) on 28.01.2020.
3. When the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘ AO ’) initiated
penalty proceedings, the petitioner requested the AO to adjourn the hearing,
as it was under an impression that its appeal against the original assessment
order was pending.
4. During the course of penalty proceedings, the AO informed the
petitioner that its appeal has been rejected. And it was only then, the petitioner
came to realise/learn that its appeal has been decided.
5. The petitioner then downloaded a copy of the order passed by the
CIT(A) on 28.07.2025 from the website/ Income Tax portal, which is subject
matter of the instant writ petition.
6. Ms. Kavita Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that
out of multiple grounds, the principal ground on which the petition is
premised is violation of principles of natural justice.
7. While informing that these days, the Departmental Authorities do not
conduct physical hearing and hearing of the appeals is faceless wherein
identity of the Appellate Authority is not disclosed and it is conducted
through National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), learned senior counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the appellant made various representations
before the Appellate Authority, so that they could properly explain the nature
of transaction but no notice of hearing was provided to the appellant, let alone
an opportunity of personal hearing or providing video conferencing link.
8. On the last date of hearing i.e . 19.05.2026, we directed Mr.Abhishek
Maratha, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, to complete
instructions as to whether a system/procedure is in place which provides an
option to the appellant/assessee for virtual hearing before the Appellate
Authority.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:23.07.2026
11:40:35
W.P.(C) 4594/2026 Page 2 of 5

9. Today, Mr. Maratha, learned senior standing counsel for the
respondents, on instructions accepted the fact that the assessee had requested
an opportunity of personal hearing to explain the facts of the case so also the
fact that no link was communicated to the assessee.
10. In relation to notice of hearing, the report submitted by the Appellate
Authority reveals that hearing notices under Section 250 of the Act of 1961
were issued on 04.12.2023, 12.12.2023, 05.01.2024, 30.08.2024, 11.09.2024
& 04.07.2025, and that the assessee participated in the appellate proceedings
by filing adjournment requests and written submissions.
11. Ms. Jha, learned senior counsel, submitted that though above referred
notices upto 04.07.2025 were received and the assessee had furnished written
submissions. She submitted that it was incumbent upon the CIT(A) to have
fixed a date of hearing after the appeal was ripe for hearing either in personal
or virtual mode, so as to enable the assessee to explain its case, but, it was not
done. She argued that above notices have thus, become illusionary. She added
that the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of the principles of
natural justice, for which it is liable to be quashed and set aside.
12. Mr. Maratha, learned senior standing counsel for the Department,
submitted that after introduction of the faceless regime, perhaps, there is no
physical- face to face hearing. He submitted that written submissions have
been duly considered by the Appellate Authority, which conform to the
principles of natural justice and thus, no interference is warranted.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. The appellate proceedings and hearing of an appeal, according to this
Court, presupposes hearing of an assessee or its authorised representative
physically or in virtual mode - face to face or with face of the authority
masked or behind curtain. Consideration of written submissions or memo of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:23.07.2026
11:40:35
W.P.(C) 4594/2026 Page 3 of 5

appeal, can in no manner, substitute the oral or personal hearing. True it is that
the Appellate Authority had given notices of hearing, in response whereof,
the assessee had, on some occasions, sought adjournments and on other
occasion(s) had filed written submissions and replies. But concededly it had
sought virtual hearing, which admittedly was not provided by the Appellate
Authority (NFAC).
15. The Appellate Authority has not provided any video conference link or
virtual hearing to the petitioner. Such approach of the Appellate Authority has
led to miscarriage rather failure of justice.
16. As pointed out by Ms. Jha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
had the petitioner been given an opportunity of personal/virtual hearing, the
petitioner could have perhaps better explained the nature of transaction i.e., (i)
Disallowance of advances written off amounting to Rs.1,27,92,250/-, and (ii)
Addition of advances under Section 68 of the Act of 1961 amounting to
Rs.20,70,00,000/-.
17. Needless to observe that there are various issues which can be better
explained with the help of personal or virtual assistance by assessee or its
authorised representative. Mere written submissions or memo of appeal are
not sufficient for proper adjudication.
18. We, therefore, allow the present writ petition, while setting aside the
impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority. The
appeal is restored to CIT(A) (NFAC). The NFAC shall issue a fresh notice of
hearing to the petitioner and provide a video conference link. In case, video
conference link facility is not available, the CIT(A) shall join the petitioner by
way of any video conferencing mode (Zoom, Cisco Webex, Google Meet or
any other virtual mode by way of WhatsApp etc.).
19. Since we have set aside the appellate order dated 28.07.2025 and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:23.07.2026
11:40:35
W.P.(C) 4594/2026 Page 4 of 5

restored the appeal, the penalty order dated 16.03.2026 passed under Section
271AAC(1) and the order dated 18.03.2026 passed under Section 270(A) of
the Act of 1961, are hereby quashed and set aside. The AO shall be free to
pass a fresh order (if required) once the appeal is decided by the Appellate
Authority.
20. The Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Principal
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National Faceless Appeal Centre) shall
co-ordinate and ensure that within three months, utility or facility of video
conferencing, as is available during the course of assessment proceedings, is
made available for the appellate proceedings under Section 250 of the Act of
1961, in case the same is not in vogue. It is necessary so that in case, any
assessee or its authorised representative asks for video conferencing, the same
can be provided, as a matter of right to the appellant or its authorised
representative.
21. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, the Central Board of
Direct Taxes and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National
Faceless Appeal Centre) for compliance.
22. The writ petition along with all pending applications is also disposed
of.
(DINESH MEHTA)
JUDGE
(RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 21, 2026/ kk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NAVEEN KUMAR
Signing Date:23.07.2026
11:40:35
W.P.(C) 4594/2026 Page 5 of 5