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

ITA 726/JODH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Manohar Singh, against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) dated 19.07.2024 concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, as the CIT(A) had only issued two notices of hearing during the COVID-19 period and did not provide any further notices before passing the order on 06.12.2024. The assessee argued that the mere activation of a communication window on the portal did not constitute a valid service of notice of hearing as required under section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act. Both parties agreed to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838385 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT KUMAR BISHNOI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 726/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year – 2017-18) Manohar Singh C/o Rajendra Jain Advocate, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur - 342001 PAN No. BIQPS 5344 J ACIT/DCIT, Circle, Barmer Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate and Smt. Raksha Birla, CA (Physical) Revenue by Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. CIT-DR (Virtual) Date of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. ORDER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: This appeal by assessee is filed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as NFAC/CIT(A)] dated 19.07.2024 with respect to Assessment Year 2017-18 challenging therein the impugned order passed in gross violation of natural principles of natural justice. 2. 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 726/Jodh/2024 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. 4. 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). 5. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 726/Jodh/2024 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. 6. We, therefore, consider it deem appropriate to sent back the matter to file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide each issue challenged in the appeal on merits of the case. At the same time, the appellant assessee shall cooperate in the fresh appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Accordingly, we remand back the matter to the file of the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue challenged in the appeal afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 726/Jodh/2024 Asst. Year: 2017-18 4 Dated : 17/02/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Jodhpur Printed from counselvise.com "