Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (3) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for consideration of the Court. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has substantially erred in law in deciding ITA No. 1374/Ahd/92 filed by the appellant when the appellant's advocate could not remain present under the impression that, hearing of the appeal would be adjourned as was repeatedly adjourned on the ground that the Bombay High Court had not decided Special Civil Application filed by Shri Mrugesh Jaykrishna." 2. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today. 4. On 19th March 1985, the customs authorities has seized US Dollars 3,04,526 as w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessment of the money found and seized in the hands of the appellant as well as Mr. Amin. The AO further added Rs. 6,400 in tire hands of the appellant on substantive basis on the statement of the appellant that, he had purchased US Dollars 400. 6. Subsequently, it was found by the AO that, while making addition of the foreign currency found and seized, wrong exchange rate was applied. He, therefore, reopened the assessment and added Rs. 11,96,191 on account of the difference in the reassessment proceedings. 7. The appellant as well as Mr. Mrugesh Jaykrishna challenged the original as well as reassessment orders made in their hands. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of Mr. Mrugesh Jaykrishna, but in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Tribunal, after hearing the appellant who argued his case in person, has remanded the matter to CIT(A) by judgment dt. 17th Oct., 2000, which has given rise to the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, previously hearing of the appeal was adjourned repeatedly on the ground that the Bombay High Court had not decided the petition filed by Mr. Mrugesh Jaykrishna, and therefore, without affording opportunity of being heard to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal could not have been taken tip for hearing by the Tribunal on 12th Oct., 2000. What was urged was that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the appeal should be accepted. 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) directed remanding back the matter on a limited aspect and did not as such quash and set aside the entire adjudication order as a whole. In any case even as per the interim order of the High Court, the aforesaid directions of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) came to be stayed. Thus, the present status of the adjudication order is in a legal flux. As a matter of fact the CIT(A) has taken contradictory stands inasmuch as while he accepts that the case of the Revenue is based on the proceedings before the customs authorities, the subsequent adjudication proceedings before the adjudicating authority: the Collector of Customs and before the Bombay High Court are not binding on the IT authorities. Such a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... utcome of the petition filed by Mr. Mrugesh Jaykrishna, the reasonable request made by the appellant who was present before the Tribunal to adjourn the proceedings to enable his learned advocate to argue the case ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal, more particularly, when the matter has chequered history and determination of complicated questions of law and facts is involved. In our view, fair opportunity of presenting the case was not afforded to the appellant by the Tribunal, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The order dt. 17th Oct., 2000 rendered by the Tribunal in ITA No 1374/Ahd/92 which is impugned in the appeal is set aside. As the impugned orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates