1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Appeal allowed due to procedural errors; remanded for fair hearing and decision</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal due to the non-service of notice for the hearing date, the ex parte decision by the AAC, and the failure to comply with ... Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Procedure In Appeal Issues:- Non-service of notice for the date of hearing- Ex parte decision by the AAC- Compliance with mandatory provisions of section 250(6)Analysis:1. Non-service of notice for the date of hearing:The appeal was filed against the order of the AAC, A-Range, New Delhi, which was decided ex parte. The appellant contended that they did not receive the notice of hearing dated 9-9-1980. The Tribunal found that no service of notice was effected on the assessee for the date of hearing, as required by Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Citing the case of Mangat Ram Kuthiala v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 1, the Tribunal emphasized that the hearing of parties is a statutory imperative, and failure to serve notice deprives the party of the opportunity to present its case.2. Ex parte decision by the AAC:The Tribunal held that the impugned order by the AAC was not a speaking order and did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AAC's decision to adopt the ITO's order without providing specific reasons was deemed insufficient. Referring to the case of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. Union of India [1973] 92 ITR 1, the Tribunal emphasized that the statutory authority must apply its own mind and provide reasons for its decision. The lack of a fair opportunity for the appellant to represent its case and the absence of a speaking order rendered the AAC's decision flawed.3. Compliance with mandatory provisions of section 250(6):The Tribunal concluded that the AAC's order was vitiated due to the denial of a fair opportunity for the appellant to present its case and the failure to issue a speaking order. As per the decision, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was restored to the file of the AAC. The AAC was directed to provide the appellant with a proper opportunity to represent its case and decide the appeal on merits according to the law. The impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and providing a fair hearing to the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
