Failure to consider adjournment requests before passing Section 148A(d) orders violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a partnership firm in the construction business, filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2018-19 on October 4, 2018

On March 21, 2022, the respondent issued a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring a response by March 28, 2022—a period of only seven days, including only four working days

The petitioner submitted an adjournment request via the Income Tax Portal on March 26, 2022, and received an automated confirmation email

the respondent passed an order under Section 148A(d) and issued a reassessment notice under Section 148 on March 30, 2022, erroneously stating that the petitioner had neither replied nor sought an adjournment

The petitioner challenged these actions as being in violation of natural justice and statutory procedure

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were legally sustainable given the respondent’s failure to consider a timely filed adjournment request

2. Whether providing only four working days to respond to a show-cause notice regarding a four-year-old assessment constitutes a valid opportunity of being heard under the Act

The court applied Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving a show-cause notice before issuing a reassessment notice

principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement that any order passed under Section 148A(d) must consider the response or procedural requests (such as adjournments) made by the assessee

The court observed that the petitioner had demonstrably sought an adjournment through the official IT portal on March 26, 2022, which was acknowledged by the department’s system

The respondent, however, proceeded to pass the impugned order on March 30, 2022, under the false premise that no such request was made

During the proceedings, the Revenue’s counsel could not dispute the factual delivery of the adjournment request

The court reasoned that by ignoring a validly submitted request for time and proceeding ex-parte, the respondent acted dehors (outside) the statutory provisions of the Act and in clear breach of the principles of natural justice

The court highlighted that the limited timeframe provided to the petitioner—compounded by the refusal to acknowledge the adjournment request—rendered the "opportunity of being heard" a mere formality rather than a substantive right

The court held that the proceedings were vitiated by a breach of natural justice

The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo exercise, granting the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and a right to a personal hearing, with the process to be completed within 12 weeks

Rule was made absolute