2007 (8) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is minor son's name and constructed a Kalyana Mandapam during 2000. Since the appellant is doing business at Singapore, he has been given the status of Non-Resident Indian. In view of the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, the income from Kalyana Mandapam is clubbed with his income and on that basis, returns have been filed with the Income Tax Department. During the assessment year 2001-02, the appellant filed the return in Form 2-D, showing loss of Rs. 2,03,829/- along with the valuation report for construction of the Kalyana Mandapam. The Assessing Officer issued notices on December 26, 2003 and February 12, 2004 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act after getting approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Thanjavur asking the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on March 01, 2004. The appellant requested the Assessing Officer not to rectify the order in view of the explanation and the approval given by the Joint Commissioner and also because of the lesser percentage of difference in the cost of construction. It appears that the second respondent satisfied himself with the explanation and no proceedings were taken pursuant to that notice. 5. By notice dated March 08, 2006, the first respondent proposed to revise the assessment suo moto under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the very same reason that the percentage of rebate given was not correct. It appears that the notice was received by the son-in-law of the appellant, who in turn contacted the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax Act provides for personal hearing. As already noted, the notice was received by the son-in-law of the appellant, who contacted the appellant in Singapore, who in turn requested him to get one month's time for filing detailed objections. The son-in-law of the appellant sent a petition on March 20, 2006 requesting one month time for filing objections. Thereafter, the objections came to be filed on March 27, 2006. According to the appellant, his son-in-law was literally forced to file objections on March 27, 2006 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent. It is not disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue that no personal hearing was given to the appellant or to his represen....