Natural justice requires an effective hearing before an order under Section 119(2)(b) can stand; matter remanded for fresh decision.

An order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act was challenged on the ground that no effective opportunity of hearing had been granted. With conflicting positions on service of the hearing email, the Court proceeded on the admitted absence of a meaningful hearing and examined the matter only for breach of natural justice, without going into the merits. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh de novo decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be quashed for want of opportunity of hearing and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The only substantive controversy was whether the petitioner had been afforded a hearing before the impugned order was passed. In view of the conflicting stands regarding service of the hearing email, the Court proceeded on the admitted position that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted. The challenge was examined only on the ground of breach of natural justice, without entering into the merits of the application.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the respondent authority to pass a fresh de novo order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is liable to be set aside where it is passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing, and the matter must be reconsidered afresh in compliance with natural justice.

---