2017 (3) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ortunity for hearing, thus resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was issued with notice at Ext.P3, fixing the date of hearing on 05.11.2016. The petitioner did not turn up for hearing on 05.11.2016, but filed an objection as seen from Ext.P4 dated 29.11.2016. The objection was also submitted through post. The Assessing Officer considered the objection filed, by Ext.P5 and finalised the assessment, however without granting any opportunity for hearing. 2. The reason stated for not issuing a hearing notice is seen in the order itself at page 7, which is extracted herein below:- e) In the pre-assessment notice hearing date was scheduled and the assessee asked adjournment and the same was granted. So....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his ground it would always be ideal for the Assessing Officers to issue notice giving a specific period for filing objection and then after considering the objection to issue notice for hearing, even if the assessee has not specifically asked for such a hearing. If no objections are filed and not even a response made requesting for further time or otherwise, then the assessment could be finalised. It would in that context be permissible for the Assessing Officers to once more issue a further notice, if the first one is not responded to, giving yet another chance. This definitely would result in a bit of delay due to the procedural rigmarole; but in the long run this would ensure avoidance of any ground being raised of violation of principle....