The Old Scheme was introduced with the noble intention of curbing malpractices, easing compliance and make appeal process seamless and faceless. However, there were some post implementation hiccups experienced and accordingly taxpayers requested certain modifications in the Old Scheme.

In order to fix the hiccups and incorporate the changes requested by taxpayers, the CDBT, in supersession of the Old Scheme, has introduced a new appeal scheme called as “Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021”[2] (“New Scheme”) on December 28, 2021.

In this alert, we have made an effort to apprise the readers with the changes introduced in the New faceless appeal Scheme vis-à-vis the Old Scheme.

Key Changes in the New Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021

The key changes brought in by the New Appeal Scheme are as follows:

1. Mandatory personal hearing, if requested

In the Old Scheme, the appellant or his authorized representative had to make a request for personal hearing and the Chief Commissioner or Director General in charge of the Regional Faceless Appeal Centre (RFAC) had the discretion to approve such request, if he was of the opinion that the request is covered by the circumstances laid down by the CBDT.

In the New Scheme, there is no requirement for prescribed circumstances and the discretion for grant of personal hearing has been completely removed. CIT(A) shall allow personal hearing if requested by the appellant anytime during the course of the proceedings.

2. Restructuring of the appeal center

In the Old Scheme, CBDT had set up a three-layer structure with National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) at the top to conduct appeals in a centralized manner (nodal agency), followed by RFAC to support NFAC and Appeal Unit (AU) at the bottom, to facilitate the conduct of e-appeal proceedings and dispose them. In the composition structure, each AU unit had one or more Commissioner Appeals [CIT(A)].

In comparison, the New Scheme has done away with the RFAC and has set up a two-layered structure headed by NFAC and AU will directly coordinate with NFAC and conduct the appeal and dispose them. Further, in the New Scheme, each AU will have only one CIT(A).

3. Elimination of review by multiple AUs

In the Old Scheme, the NFAC on receipt of draft order from AU, would  review the order and if the payable amount in respect of disputed issue was more than a specified amount, then send the draft order to another AU, other than the AU which had prepared it. In any other case, the NFAC would  examine the order based on the specified risk management strategy and then finalise the appeal or send the draft order to another AU.

The other AU who was assigned such case, would  either concur with the order or suggest variations as it would  deem fit. In case of variation, the NFAC would  assign the said appeal to another AU other than the one who had prepared or reviewed the draft order. The NFAC would then pass the final order, based on the order received from the last AU.

In the New Scheme, the CIT(A), after examining the submissions, shall now pass the order by digitally signing the same and send it to NFAC, along with details of penalty proceedings, if any, to be initiated therein.

Such order shall be final and will not be reviewed at multiple AUs as provided in the erstwhile scheme. NFAC shall communicate such order to the appellant and such other officers as may be prescribed.

4. Penalty Proceedings

In the Old Scheme, AU in the event of any non-compliance during the appeal proceedings, had to send a recommendation to NFAC to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the New Scheme, there is no need to send such recommendation and the CIT(A) can directly send the penalty notice through NFAC.

FM Comments:

The modifications provided in the New Scheme are certainly a move in the right direction by easing the process and building a robust appeal scheme. The CDBT, by removing the discretionary power of the authorities for grant of personal hearing, has also made an effort to meet the constitutional validity criteria, which has also been one of the matters, challenged before the Courts.