TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there is no finding rendered by the 1st respondent on the merits of the matter except stating that the reports of the Assessing Officer and the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax have been perused and the records have been gone through. This is insufficient to show that there was application of mind to the facts of the case. In any event, if the 1st respondent had considered the matter on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the 1st respondent is directed to hear the petition filed under Section 264 of the Act and take a decision on merits - W.P. No. 29264 of 2006 M.P. No. 1 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.J. Balachander For the Respondents : Mr.J. Narayanaswamy Standing Counsel ORDER Heard Mr.J. Balachander, learned counsel for the petitioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the petitioner dated 04.03.2005 informing that the hearing of the case was fixed on 11.03.2005. The petitioner did not appear on the said date and another letter dated 14.03.2005 was sent fixing the date of personal hearing as 22.03.2005. However, there was no response. As a result, the 1st respondent rejected the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, left with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner has produced the Bank Statement, written submissions and all relevant records before the 1st respondent and such records were all available with the predecessor-in-office and all the records were gone through. Therefore, the 1st respondent observed that the claim of the assessee that the matter was not decided on merits is incorrect. 4. A cursory perusal of the order dated 30.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fforded an opportunity of personal hearing. That being so, the successor officer cannot state that there is no necessity to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, when his predecessor had thought it fit to do so. 5. Thus, for all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should not be non-suited on technicalities. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
