Home Audit & Assurance HC sets aside Rejection Order of Income Tax Revision Application Passed without giving opportunity of Being Heard

HC sets aside Rejection Order of Income Tax Revision Application Passed without giving opportunity of Being Heard

0
HC sets aside Rejection Order of Income Tax Revision Application Passed without giving opportunity of Being Heard

HC units apart Rejection Order of Revenue Tax Revision Utility Handed with out giving alternative of Being Heard

Info of the Case:

  • A discover was issued underneath Part 264 of the Act dated March 6, 2021 whereby the date was mounted for the assessee to seem on March 10, 2021.
  • The petitioner couldn’t seem on that specific date and was additionally unable to file any utility for adjournment. He, nonetheless, submits that the order was not handed on March 10, 2021 and one other date was mounted by the Division for March 16, 2021.
  • On March 16, 2021, there seems to be a noting on the file that signifies that the revision utility of the assessee underneath Part 264 of the Act was rejected. The aforesaid noting reads:- “After cautious consideration of of the assessee’s submission and AO’s report, an order underneath Part 264 was issued rejecting the assessee’s petition.”

Contetion of the Division:

The counsel showing on behalf of the Division submits that the petitioner didn’t file any utility for adjournment and, subsequently, the order was handed ex-parte. He additional submits that no additional date was required to be granted to the assessee as no utility was filed by the assessee for adjournment. With regard to noting of March 16, 2021, he submits that the file was checked out by the Officer on that date and the order of rejection was handed.

View and Order of the Court docket:

5. It’s to be famous that the fabric date of the order is March 23, 2021, and never March 16, 2021. Upon a perusal of the paperwork, it seems that although the matter was mounted for March 10, 2021 however no order was handed by the officer involved on that date. In truth, the matter was posted for a subsequent date whereby no discover was given to the assessee. The paperwork reveal that on March 10, 2021 there was no noting in any way achieved by the officer involved. In truth, it was not even famous that the petitioner didn’t seem on that date.

6. For my part, because the revision utility was filed by the petitioner underneath Part 264 of the Act, the officer involved should have granted an additional alternative to the petitioner to seem because the matter was not heard out and selected that date. One needn’t elaborate on the virtues of listening to in individual earlier than an antagonistic order is handed towards an assessee. In mild of the identical, I’m of the view that the officer involved ought to have granted one other alternative to the petitioner and solely thereafter handed an order that was antagonistic to the petitioner. Not having achieved so, there seems to be a violation of rules of pure justice.

7. In mild of the above, the order dated March 23, 2021, is quashed and put aside with a route given to the officer involved to concern discover for listening to to the petitioner and listen to out the matter inside a interval of two months from the date. I make it clear that no adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner and her non-participation shall entitle the officer involved to move an ex-parte order. Your complete course of must be accomplished inside a interval of three months from the date.

For Official Judgment Obtain PDF Given Beneath:

Be part of StudyCafe Membership. For Extra particulars about Membership Click on Be part of Membership Button

Be part of Membership

In case of any Doubt concerning Membership you’ll be able to mail us at [email protected]

Be part of Studycafe’s WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Newest Updates on Authorities Job, Sarkari Naukri, Non-public Jobs, Revenue Tax, GST, Corporations Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here