2003 (7) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed on March 12, 1997, for the assessment year 1988-89. The petitioners entered into a partnership agreement on March 1, 1988. The capital in cash was raised by them for the newly constituted firm. The said cash was seized by the police on March 23, 1988, and was handed over to the Income-tax Department. The cash, thus, seized was assessed in the hands of Shri Ramesh Kumar (owner of the car) on substantive basis and protective assessments have been made in the case of the petitioners. All the five revisions were heard and decided ex parte in the absence of the petitioners or their counsel as on the date fixed, i.e., November 30, 1999, none appeared before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chartered accountant to argue the matter on the merits. It has been further stated that Shri Arora was engaged only for a limited purpose to seek adjournment and was not prepared to argue the case on the merits. In this view of the matter according to the petitioners, no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded by respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order. On January 7, 2003, this court directed the petitioners to file affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Arora, the chartered accountant. The necessity to pass that order arose on account of the fact that in the writ petition it was mentioned that the petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2 along with Shri Kuldeep Arora and sought adjournment but in the impugned order it was mentioned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s or not. In the impugned order it is mentioned that on November 30,1999, no one attended. The petitioners have come forward with specific allegation that an adjournment was sought on November 30, 1999. In support of the writ petition, affidavit of petitioner No.1 has been filed. A rejoinder affidavit of Shri Hari Om Agrawal petitioner No.3 has also been filed. In para. No. 19 of the rejoinder affidavit averments made in the writ petition have been reiterated. On the other hand the Department has filed an affidavit of the Income-tax Inspector, Shri Shreedhar Chaturvedi. The contents of the counter affidavit of Shri Shreedhar Chaturvedi are sworn on personal knowledge. It is not understandable as to how an Inspector of Mathura can say on per....