<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (5) TMI 1179 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753126</link>
    <description>The J&amp;amp;K and Ladakh HC set aside the Pr. CIT&#039;s dismissal of a revision petition u/s 264, finding procedural unfairness and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of prior notices and demanded hearing, but Pr. CIT dismissed the petition stating petitioner had nothing further to add. The HC held that the impugned order lacked reasoning for refusing adjournment and failed to explain why the Assessing Officer&#039;s order was upheld, particularly when notices were allegedly sent to an unrelated address. Despite potential merit issues, the court emphasized that natural justice required proper hearing opportunity. The matter was remanded to Pr. CIT for rehearing with directions for petitioner&#039;s appearance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2024 08:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1179 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753126</link>
      <description>The J&amp;amp;K and Ladakh HC set aside the Pr. CIT&#039;s dismissal of a revision petition u/s 264, finding procedural unfairness and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of prior notices and demanded hearing, but Pr. CIT dismissed the petition stating petitioner had nothing further to add. The HC held that the impugned order lacked reasoning for refusing adjournment and failed to explain why the Assessing Officer&#039;s order was upheld, particularly when notices were allegedly sent to an unrelated address. Despite potential merit issues, the court emphasized that natural justice required proper hearing opportunity. The matter was remanded to Pr. CIT for rehearing with directions for petitioner&#039;s appearance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>