*Citation*: Sanjay Sodhi vs. ITO, Ward 2, Rohtak in ITA No. 4079/Del/2024 *dated 12.2.2025*. *Assessment year*: 2017-18 *Appeal before*: ITAT "G" Bench, New Delhi. *Facts of the case*: (1) Cash deposited into Bank account during demonetization period to the time of 4,06,50,589/-. (2) Assessment completed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act. (3) CIT(A) dismissed the appeal observing that six notices u/s 250 were issued for hearing but the appellant failed to make submissions in support of the Grounds of Appeal. (4) CIT(A) dismissed appeal- (a) Without considering *adjournment application*. (b) Without *adjudication upon and deciding the Grounds of Appeal in terms of section 250(6)*. *Argued before ITAT*: (1) It was argued before ITAT a specific request for adjournment was made u/s 250(3) of the Act vide letter dated 17.6.2023. (2) The request for adjournment was neither considered nor discussed in the appellate order.l (3) Therefore, the effective opportunity of being heard was not allowed. *ITAT held*: (1) Appellate order set aside and restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the Grounds of appeal. (2) The assessee may be allowed adequate opportunity of being heard. (3) Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.