NFAC Apologises for Denial of Hearing Due to Oversight and Huge Case Pendency: Calcutta HC Remands Matter for Fresh Disposal [Read Order]
The Calcutta High Court sets aside NFAC’s order passed without hearing, remands the matter for fresh disposal under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act.
![NFAC Apologises for Denial of Hearing Due to Oversight and Huge Case Pendency: Calcutta HC Remands Matter for Fresh Disposal [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/07/2073990-nfac-itat-taxscan.webp "NFAC Apologises for Denial of Hearing Due to Oversight and Huge Case Pendency: Calcutta HC Remands Matter for Fresh Disposal [Read Order]")
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court set aside an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) admitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee due to oversight and high pendency of cases. Nazirpur Large-Sized Multipurpose Co-operative Society, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging...
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court set aside an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) admitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee due to oversight and high pendency of cases.
Nazirpur Large-Sized Multipurpose Co-operative Society, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 17 March 2025 passed by NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order was passed in violation of a previous direction issued by a Coordinate Bench of the same court on 13 February 2025 in WPA 5351 and WPA 5348 of 2020, which had specifically directed that an opportunity of hearing must be provided before disposing of the appeal.
Affective Ways Of Tax Planning for HUF, Partnership Firm and Will - Click Here
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the appellate order was passed without granting the petitioner a chance to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice as well as the binding directions of the court.
When the court initially heard the matter on 25 June 2025, it directed the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to file an affidavit explaining how the appeal was disposed of without hearing the petitioner.
In response, the department filed an affidavit admitting that no hearing was provided and explained that the lapse occurred unintentionally due to the large number of pending cases. The concerned officer tendered an apology to the court for the oversight.
After hearing both sides, the bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury explained that the reason given by the department was not sufficient to justify the denial of a hearing, but the apology appeared to be sincere. The court quashed the order dated 17 March 2025 as it was passed in breach of both natural justice and the court’s earlier directions.
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, Click Here
The court set aside the order passed by NFAC and also quashed all consequential demands. The matter was remanded back to NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and comply with the earlier court order.
The court also directed that a proper opportunity of personal hearing must be granted to the petitioner. The NFAC was directed to complete the proceedings within sixteen weeks from the date of communication of the court’s order. The writ petition was disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
