RAGHUNATH MAHATO,DHANBAD V. PCIT, DHANBAD

ITA 89/RAN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Raghunath Mahato against the order of the Pr.CIT, Dhanbad, passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention in the appeal was the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice due to the 'whimsical gap' between the dates of notices and hearings. The assessee was represented by none, while the revenue was represented by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond to multiple notices and, despite this, decided to restore the matter to the Pr.CIT for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for fair hearing and proper notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780297 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263; 2

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 89/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year-2015-16) Raghunath Mahato, Nawagarh, Harina Colony Road, Harina, Jharkhand-826001. PAN No. AETPM 0476 K Vs. Pr.C.I.T., Dhanbad. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 08/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 08/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, Dhanabd in appeal No. PCIT, Dhanbad/revision-263/100000636520/2023 dated 30/01/2024 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Rajib Jain, ld. CIT-DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 89/Ran/2024 Raghunath Mahato Vs PCIT 2 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. 4. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 89/Ran/2024 Raghunath Mahato Vs PCIT 3 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. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order announced in open court on 08/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 08/10/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "