Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 982 - HC - Income TaxOrder invalid on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice - revision u/s 263 - Held that:- The very fact that the adjournment petition was received after the hearing was concluded at best could imply that the assessee was seeking re-hearing, and we do not think such a plea was justified. No application for adjournment was made on the day the hearing was scheduled to take place before the Commissioner. If the noticee does not turn up before the authority before whom he has to respond to the notice, but seeks adjournment of hearing after two days, the noticee cannot complain of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner did not commit any error of law warranting interference from a superior appellate forum under the circumstances in deciding the case on merit. Moreover, the assessee had full opportunity to deal with the issue on merit before the Tribunal. Commissioner had outlined the manner in which the enquiry was to be carried out. There is no specific direction in the order stipulating in what way the case was to be decided. The Assessing Officer has been directed to pass a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and upon verifying the source of share capital including the share premium of all the subscribers and rotation of money through various hands so as to ascertain the true nature of transaction which would bring to the fore, the reality of the transactions. The Commissioner's order gives a guideline on how the Assessing Officer shall proceed with the enquiry. The order, as we have already observed, does not contain a mandate in which manner the assessing officer shall pass the order. In our opinion, such a direction does not attract the prohibitory provisions of section 119. The said provision deals with power and jurisdiction of the Board to issue instruction on subordinate authorities. We do not think the Commissioner's order with which the assessee is aggrieved has been passed in breach of such principles. No substantial question of law.
|