MANOHAR SINGH,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/ADIC, CIRCLE, BARMER

At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued only two notices of hearing u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 14.01.2021 and 19.02.2021 during the Covid period and thereafter no notice of hearing was issued to the appellant.

Asst. Year: 2017-18 2 3. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) merely enabled the communication window on the portal on 04.11.2022 which was no stretch or imagination construed as a valid service of notice of hearing as contemplated u/s 250(1) of the Act. He contended that the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on 06.12.2024 i.e. after a gap of nearly three years without issuing any notice of hearing to the appellant assessee. The Ld. AR argued that the impugned order was passed without granting an adequate and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee.

The AR has prayed the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits of the case after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. The Ld. DR for the Department has no objection to the request of the assessee in restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

Having heard both the sides and perusal of the record, we hold that mere opening of window by Ld. CIT(A) on the portal by no stretch and imagination could construed as granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. In our view, the manner in which the Ld. CIT(A) has concluded the proceedings by way of issuing only two notices u/s 250 of the Act during the Covid period would be not justified as it has been in gross Asst. Year: 2017-18 3 violation of natural justice. In view of natural justice, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remaining period of three years before passing the impugned order and adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merits of the case on each issue challenged before him.