https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10690 The Delhi High Court held that an adjudicatory tribunal must pronounce its reasoned order in open hearing on the date fixed, even though the order is later communicated under section 254(3) and rule 35. It treated "pass" and "pronounce" as substantially equivalent in this procedural setting and rejected the view that the absence of an express pronouncement word in the statute dispensed with open declaration. The Court emphasised that procedural fairness, natural justice, and the rule of law require parties to know the result when the order is signed and dated. The Tribunal was directed to follow open pronouncement of its orders. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10690 The Delhi High Court held that an adjudicatory tribunal must pronounce its reasoned order in open hearing on the date fixed, even though the order is later communicated under section 254(3) and rule 35. It treated "pass" and "pronounce" as substantially equivalent in this procedural setting and rejected the view that the absence of an express pronouncement word in the statute dispensed with open declaration. The Court emphasised that procedural fairness, natural justice, and the rule of law require parties to know the result when the order is signed and dated. The Tribunal was directed to follow open pronouncement of its orders. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10690