TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Denial of personal hearing under Section 250(1) violates natural justice principles and renders appellate orders procedurally defective</h1> <h3>Ms. Masila Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi., The Income Tax Officer, New Delhi</h3> The Madras HC held that denial of personal hearing opportunity under Section 250(1) constituted a violation of natural justice principles. The court found ... Mandatory requirement of personal hearing opportunity in terms of provision u/s 250(1) - denial of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As notice has to be issued to the appellant by fixing the date and place of the hearing, in the present case, no notice was issued communicating the personal hearing opportunity and without providing personal hearing opportunity, the impugned orders in appeal came to be passed, which is clear violation of principles of natural justices. The Madras High Court, before Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, disposed of writ petitions challenging the impugned orders dated 19.03.2025 passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner contended that the mandatory requirement under Section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961-specifically, the provision of a personal hearing opportunity before disposing the appeal-was not complied with, thus violating principles of natural justice.The respondent argued that multiple notices were issued to the petitioner, providing ample opportunity. However, the Court found that these notices were for filing written submissions and not for personal hearing as mandated by Section 250(1), which requires that the Commissioner (Appeals) 'shall fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal, and shall give notice of the same to the appellant.'The Court held that since no personal hearing notice was issued, the impugned orders were passed in violation of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent with directions to issue a clear 14-day notice fixing the date of personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
