1986 (4) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the AAC ex parte. Before the AAC it was contended that the notice of hearing was duly served on him but by mistake the assessee's representative noted the date of hearing as 2nd May, 1983 instead of 2nd June, 1983. He could not inform the assessee. It was a genuine mistake and, therefore, there was no intention to defy the notice. Reliance was placed upon CIT vs. S.C. Chinnappa Mudaliar (1969) 7....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... second appeal before us. 2. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in these appeals. The point of course is a ticklish one, but after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by authorities below. Our reasons for the conclusions are simple. The powers of the AAC are contained in s. 251. In the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ussed by the AAC, the Tribunal would have in normal circumstances restored the matter back to the AAC for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. If the AAC himself has chosen to hold that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's absence in the first instance we do not see any thing wrong in his doing so. In fact, our feeling is that the Department should not h....