Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 353 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 353 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Revision u/s 263 - due and reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the assessee - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. Counsel for the assessee was ill and could not represent the case of the assessee on 25.02.2015 when the ld. CIT asked the assessee to furnish its submission vide letter dated 20.02.2015. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT himself admitted that the original notice of hearing dated 20.02.2015 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld. CIT. In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside and the ld. CIT is directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 2351, 2352/Del/2015 - Dated:- 19-10-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM For The Assessee : Sh. K. R. Rastogi, CA For The Revenue : Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Haldwani erred on facts and in law in rejecting the adjournment application due to illness of the advocate and thereby passing an ex-parte order u/s 263 of I.T. Act, inspite of the fact, that there was a reasonable cause. 2. That on 25.02.2015, the Associate Vice President of Appellant Bank attended the proceedings at Haldwani Office. However Ld. CIT was not at Haldwani on that date and it was explained that no officer has been authorized for this proceeding. Hence request for adjournment with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was signed and issued by Ld. CIT, Haldwani on 20.02.2015 at Haldwani, However, on 20.02.2015, the Ld. CIT was not at Haldwani. Hence the said notice does not meet the requirement of Law. 5. That a photocopy of notice dt. 20.02.2015 u/s 263 of I.T. Act was received on 21.02.2015. The said notice was not attested by concerned authorities of Income Tax Office, Haldwani, meaning thereby no valid notice is served. The duly signed notice dt. 20.02.2015 was actually served on 27.02.2015 i.e. after the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and accepted the disallowance under section 14A of I.T. Act as disclosed by Assessee. 8. The initiation of proceeding u/s 263 of I.T. Act and order u/s 263 of I. T. Act is contrary to the facts, law, principle of natural justice and without providing proper opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by him. 4. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT by rejecting the application for adjournment due to illness of the counse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. CIT in the impugned order mentioned that the assessee was given opportunity of being heard vide letter dated 20.02.2015 and was asked to furnish its submission by 25.02.2015. The ld. CIT also pointed out that the original notice was served on the assessee on 27.02.2015. The assessee sought adjournment, at least for a month on the ground that it needed to consult its counsel, Sh. K. R. Rastogi, FCA, who had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the ld. CIT without giving the opportunity of being heard passed the impugned order ex-parte, in spite of the fact that the assessee was not in a position to represent its case due to illness of its Counsel Sh. K. R. Rastogi, who was hospitalized and was not in a position to represent the case on 25.02.2015. 7. In her rival submissions the ld. CIT DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT and further submitted that the ld. Counsel for the assessee had been discharged fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version