TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has appeared on behalf of the revisionist. This observation is assailed by contending in para 14 to 16 that in fact the Tribunal observed in open Court that matter was complicated and, therefore, the appeal would be adjourned to the some other date. Letter of the counsel date 25.6.2020 has also been annexed as annexure no.5 which contains the communication of lawyer to the revisionist in that reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal at Bareilly, on 13.3.2020, whereby the order of assessment passed by the first appellate authority has been confirmed. The order impugned records that repeated opportunity were granted to the revisionist to argue the matter but none has appeared on its behalf on the date fixed for hearing i.e. 12.3.2020. The order essentially relies upon a remand note submitted by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to the order of tribunal being inconsistent with the law laid down in Radha Saomi Satsang Vs. C.T.T. (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) and BSNL Vs. Union of India (2006) 28 ITR 273. Leaned Standing counsel has been heard on behalf of the State authorities. He states that adequate opportunity of hearing has been given to the revisionist. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppears to have substance inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that this remand report was ever served upon the revisionist. In the event the Tribunal thought it appropriate to rely upon such report, it was essential that its copy be served upon the revisionist, inasmuch as any material relied upon against the revisionist ought to be served to it. The contention advanced on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
