TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes Tribunal's order for violating natural justice, directs fair consideration of petitions.</h1> <h3>K. Sreedharan And Company Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others</h3> K. Sreedharan And Company Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others - [1996] 222 ITR 751, 135 CTR 121 Issues:1. Imposition of penalty for delay in filing income tax return2. Rejection of adjournment application leading to ex parte order3. Refusal to register and consider petitions to set aside ex parte orders by the TribunalAnalysis:1. The petitioner was penalized for a delay in filing the income tax return under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner appealed the penalty order, which was allowed by the second respondent. Subsequently, the Revenue filed an appeal against this decision. The petitioner's chartered accountant sought an adjournment for the appeal hearing, but the third respondent rejected the application, leading to an ex parte order in exhibit P-4.2. The petitioner filed petitions under rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, to set aside the ex parte orders. However, the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal informed the petitioner that the petitions would not be registered as miscellaneous petitions and were rejected without considering the merits. The Tribunal's decision not to even register the petitions and reject them without giving an opportunity to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice.3. The court held that the Tribunal's action in rejecting the petitions without allowing the petitioner to present his case and without providing reasons for not registering the petitions was unjust. The court quashed exhibit P-6 and directed the Tribunal to consider the petitioner's petitions seeking to set aside the ex parte order in exhibit P-4. The Tribunal was instructed to dispose of the petitions on their merits after giving the petitioner or his representative an opportunity to be heard, ensuring a fair process in line with principles of natural justice. The original petition was disposed of with these directions.
TaxTMI 