Income Tax Appeals Overturned Due to Notice Violations; Case Remanded for Fresh Hearing and Additional Grounds Submission.

The HC allowed the writ petition challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 due to procedural violations under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased appellant, was not issued a notice of hearing after responding to Show Cause Notices. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, directing the petitioner to appear on a specified date and permitting the submission of additional grounds for appeal.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the violation of procedural requirements under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act in the hearing and deciding of appeals.

Details of the Judgment:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. The petitioner's husband, who had initiated the appeals, passed away after filing the appeals. The petitioner sought to be impleaded in place of her deceased husband. Despite the petitioner's responses and submissions, no further notice of hearing was issued to her after a certain date.

The court noted that Section 250 of the Income Tax Act prescribes the procedure for appeals, including the requirement to fix a date and place for hearing, issue notices to the appellant and the Assessing Officer, and provide the appellant with the right to be heard. The court found that no notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner after she had responded to Show Cause Notices and submitted written arguments. The Commissioner (Appeals) was aware of the petitioner's status as the wife and legal heir of the deceased appellant but failed to follow the prescribed procedure.

The court ruled that the impugned orders were issued in violation of the procedural requirements of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the orders were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on a specified date without the issuance of a notice of hearing. The petitioner was permitted to present additional grounds for the appeal, and the respondent was instructed to decide the appeals afresh after hearing the petitioner. The court clarified that no further opportunities would be granted to the petitioner for submitting additional documents or evidence, except for filing additional grounds if desired.

Therefore, the court disposed of the writ petition with the above directions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the Income Tax Act for the fair and just resolution of appeals.

---