RAGHUNATH MAHATO,DHANBAD vs. PCIT,, DHANBAD

None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajib Jain, ld. CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that in ground No. 2, the assessee has raised the ground that there is whimsical gap between the dates of notices and dates of hearings and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was a submission that initially a notice under Section 263 had been issued on 26/12/2023. The assessee did not respond to the notice. The said notice was sent through the registered e-mail. It was a submission that Raghunath Mahato Vs PCIT second notice was issued on 20/01/2024, the assessee did not comply with that notice also. It was a submission that consequently the order has been passed ex parte against the assessee. It was a submission that the substantial time had been given to the assessee and the order of the ld. PCIT is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the submissions of the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative and we have also perused the records. A perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has challenged the principles of natural justice. The assessee has also filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging this violation of the principles of natural justice. This being so, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the issues in the appeal are liable to be restored to the file of the ld. Pr.CIT, Dhanbad for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It must be mentioned here that the assessee has been prompt in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but has been recalcitrant in representing his appeal. The same recalcitrant attitude has also been shown before the ld. Pr.CIT. However, it is only for the purpose of granting the assessee another chance to set-right its affairs, the issues in this appeal are being restored to the file of ld. Pr.CIT for readjudicadtion after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. A perusal of the order of the ld. Pr.CIT shows that the ld. Pr.CIT has issued the notice through e-mail. It would be advisable that if the assessee does not respond to the notices issued through e-mail, at least one notice be sent through physical mode to the assessee at his last known address or registered address as recorded in his PAN, so that the principles of natural justice are fully complied with. With these directions, the issues in this appeal Raghunath Mahato Vs PCIT are restored to the file of the ld. Pr.CIT for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee continue with his recalcitrant attitude, liberty is granted to the ld. Pr.CIT to draw adverse inference in accordance with law.