TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, hence, these are being disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, we are dealing with ITA No.91/Del/2013 (A.Y. 1992- 93) wherein the following grounds have been raised:- "1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the A.O. was not correct in law to treat the assessee as being in default so as to warrant assessment under sec. 144 of I.T. Act. The impugned assessment under sec. 144 deserves to be set aside being illegal and in violation of Principle of Natural justice because as is evident from the records of the case that compliance of various Notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer was made through various petitions. 2. i) That the appellant did not receive any amount outside its books of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erve to be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction for adjudication of the Grounds of Appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. 6. That in response to the Notice of hearing of Appeal fixed on 4.12.2009, the assessee sent a petition dated 30.11.09 sent through Speed Post on 1.12.09 followed by a Telegram sent on 2.12.09. It is evident from the Appellate order that the adjournment application dated 30.11.09 and the telegram dated 2.12.09 have not been taken into consideration by the Id. CIT (A). Consequently, the Id. CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to hold that no compliance was made on the date of hearing thereby dismissing the appeal without taking into consideration the petition and also the telegram. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal vide its order dated 6.12.2013. After recalling the Tribunal's order the case of the assessee was adjourned on various dates either on the request of the assessee or on other pretext and lastly the same was fixed for hearing on 09.3.2015. In spite of the same, assessee has not appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute and filed the Application for adjournment. It is pertinent to mention here that before the AO assessee also remained non-cooperative and the AO finally passed the order u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act. As per the impugned order also assessee remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A), who has passed the order in the absence of the assessee. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as explained abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for hearing Remark 1 5.10.07 12.10.07 On request case adjourned for 26.10.07 2 26.10.07 24.12.07 On request case adjourned for 21.1.08 3 21.1.08 - On request case adjourned for 11.2.08 4 11.2.208 - On request case adjourned. 5 14.2.08 27.2.08 On request adjourned 14.5.08 6 14.5.08 - On request case adjourned 7 28.7.08 18.8.08 On request case adjourned. 8 26.8.08 12.9.08 None attended nor any application for adjournment was filed. 9 24.11.08 8.12.08 On request case adjourned. 10 29.1.09 16.2.09 On request case adjourned. 11 24.8.09 2.9.09 On request case adjourned. A last opportunity was also pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals) has not at all dealt the issues in detail and not passed a speaking order at all, but only confirmed the action of the AO, which in our opinion, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is a erroneous approach. It is a settled law that even an administrative order has to be speaking one. 6.1 In this regard we draw support from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case M/s Sahara India (Farms) Vs. CIT & Anr. in [2008] 300 ITR 403 has held that even "an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice". 6.2 We further draw support from the Apex Court decision in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal Vs. CIT, 131 ITR 451 wherein it was held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction as ....