Table of Content
1. adequate opportunity for representation is essential. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. counsel's inability to represent due to medical emergencies. (Para 4 , 5)
3. restoration for fair adjudication based on procedural fairness. (Para 6)
4. final order allows appeal for statistical purposes. (Para 7)

Essar Steel Metal Trading Limited (earlier known as Edwell Metal and Trading Limited), Essar House, 11, KK Marg, Tulsiwadi, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 PAN: AABCE4851F	vs	DCIT, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai Room No.563B 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400 020
APPLICANT		RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Tarang Mehta Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of hearing : 04/08/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/08/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assesse is filed against the order of the National Faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2020-21, date of order 11/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai (in short, “the Ld. AO”) passed under section 143(3), date of order 30/09/2022.

2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessment in the present case was completed by the Ld. AO within a very short span of 20 days. It is not in dispute that the assessee did not receive sufficient opportunity to properly represent its case during the assessment proceedings. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein additions were made under various heads.

3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had granted the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing on multiple occasions. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s consultant, Chartered Accountant Shri Narendra Baheti, was representing the matter and had filed adjournment petitions before the Ld. CIT(A). However, due to a medical emergency involving his wife, the consultant was unable to continue representing the assessee during the appellate proceedings.

During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. AR filed an affidavit sworn before a Notary Public on 22/07/2025, wherein the said Chartered Accountant affirmed his inability to attend the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) owing to his wife’s medical condition. The relevant medical documents have also been annexed with the said affidavit.

4. The Ld. AR further submitted that during the assessment stage, due to the change in jurisdiction from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and later back to the JAO, the assessee lost valuable time to respond and submit necessary documents. Consequently, the assessment was completed in a hurried manner, and the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to furnish supporting evidence.

In light of these circumstances, the Ld. AR prayed that the matter be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for reframing the assessment after granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposed the prayer of the Ld. AR and contended that the matter may, at most, be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), where the assessee may be permitted to adduce the relevant evidence.

6. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has demonstrated reasonable cause for the non-submission of documents before the Ld. CIT(A). It is also evident that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity. However, we also note that the assessee did not raise any objection before the Ld. AO or any other authority with respect to the short time span in which the assessment was concluded. Nevertheless, the assessment was completed under s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document