TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revenue appeals could be heard on merits in the absence of proper service of notice on the assessee, and whether the Tribunal could require service through the income-tax authorities in exercise of its incidental powers.
Analysis: Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the Tribunal to afford both sides an opportunity of being heard, and proper service of notice is a necessary condition for that opportunity. Where the revenue failed to ensure service of hearing notice at the address furnished in the memorandum of appeal, the Tribunal was justified in declining to proceed on merits. The Tribunal also recognised that, as a judicial body, it possesses incidental and ancillary powers necessary to make its express jurisdiction effective, and that such powers may include directing service through the department or using procedural assistance consistent with established practice and Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Conclusion: The Tribunal held that, in the facts of the case, the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits and were liable to be dismissed for want of effective service; the revenue was left at liberty to seek recall if the assessee was later traced.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
