https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344184 The court upheld the ITAT's decision affirming the CIT (Appeals) order, finding that the AO was given a proper opportunity to rebut the director's statement as required under Rule 46-A. The CIT (Appeals) had provided notice and details to the AO for comments, but the AO failed to respond despite reminders. The court determined that the CIT (Appeals) had followed principles of natural justice, and there was no violation of Rule 46-A. The director's statement was not the sole basis for the decision, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the ITAT's decision. en-us Thu, 25 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jun 2017 05:45:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344184 The court upheld the ITAT's decision affirming the CIT (Appeals) order, finding that the AO was given a proper opportunity to rebut the director's statement as required under Rule 46-A. The CIT (Appeals) had provided notice and details to the AO for comments, but the AO failed to respond despite reminders. The court determined that the CIT (Appeals) had followed principles of natural justice, and there was no violation of Rule 46-A. The director's statement was not the sole basis for the decision, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the ITAT's decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344184