TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of law is formulated for consideration of the Court. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has substantially erred in law in deciding ITA No. 1374/Ahd/92 filed by the appellant when the appellant's advocate could not remain present under the impression that, hearing of the appeal would be adjourned as was repeatedly adjourned on the ground that the Bombay High Court had not decided Special Civil Application filed by Shri Mrugesh Jaykrishna." 2. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today. 4. On 19th March 1985, the customs authorities has seized US ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so made protective assessment of the money found and seized in the hands of the appellant as well as Mr. Amin. The AO further added Rs. 6,400 in tire hands of the appellant on substantive basis on the statement of the appellant that, he had purchased US Dollars 400. 6. Subsequently, it was found by the AO that, while making addition of the foreign currency found and seized, wrong exchange rate was applied. He, therefore, reopened the assessment and added Rs. 11,96,191 on account of the difference in the reassessment proceedings. 7. The appellant as well as Mr. Mrugesh Jaykrishna challenged the original as well as reassessment orders made in their hands. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment on substantive basis in the hands of Mr. Mrugesh J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the appellant who argued his case in person, has remanded the matter to CIT(A) by judgment dt. 17th Oct., 2000, which has given rise to the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, previously hearing of the appeal was adjourned repeatedly on the ground that the Bombay High Court had not decided the petition filed by Mr. Mrugesh Jaykrishna, and therefore, without affording opportunity of being heard to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal could not have been taken tip for hearing by the Tribunal on 12th Oct., 2000. What was urged was that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the appeal should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) directed remanding back the matter on a limited aspect and did not as such quash and set aside the entire adjudication order as a whole. In any case even as per the interim order of the High Court, the aforesaid directions of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) came to be stayed. Thus, the present status of the adjudication order is in a legal flux. As a matter of fact the CIT(A) has taken contradictory stands inasmuch as while he accepts that the case of the Revenue is based on the proceedings before the customs authorities, the subsequent adjudication proceedings before the adjudicating authority: the Collector of Customs and before the Bombay High Court are not binding on the IT authori....