TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal writ petitioner. The appellant is doing business at Singapore for the past 25 years and out of his earnings, he has purchased certain lands in his native village in his minor son's name and constructed a Kalyana Mandapam during 2000. Since the appellant is doing business at Singapore, he has been given the status of Non-Resident Indian. In view of the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, the income from Kalyana Mandapam is clubbed with his income and on that basis, returns have been filed with the Income Tax Department. During the assessment year 2001-02, the appellant filed the return in Form 2-D, showing loss of Rs. 2,03,829/- along with the valuation report for construction of the Kalyana Mandapam. The Assessing Officer issued notices o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts were explained and he also brought to the notice of the second respondent that the higher value fixed by the Department was accepted only after elaborate discussions with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on March 01, 2004. The appellant requested the Assessing Officer not to rectify the order in view of the explanation and the approval given by the Joint Commissioner and also because of the lesser percentage of difference in the cost of construction. It appears that the second respondent satisfied himself with the explanation and no proceedings were taken pursuant to that notice. 5. By notice dated March 08, 2006, the first respondent proposed to revise the assessment suo moto under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. The main contention is that the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Section 263 of the Income Tax Act provides for personal hearing. As already noted, the notice was received by the son-in-law of the appellant, who contacted the appellant in Singapore, who in turn requested him to get one month's time for filing detailed objections. The son-in-law of the appellant sent a petition on March 20, 2006 requesting one month time for filing objections. Thereafter, the objections came to be filed on March 27, 2006. According to the appellant, his son-in-law was literally forced to file objections on March 27, 2006 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
