TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LEASE YOUR HONOURS, 1. That the above appeal of the assessee was decided ex-parte by this Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 31.07.2024 (received by assessee on 07.10.2024) for A.Y. 2018-19. A copy of the ITAT order is enclosed herewith for ready reference at (PB 1-4). 2. That in the said order, there are certain glaring and patent mistakes apparent from the face of the record, which are rectifiable u/s 254(2) of the Act. These mistakes are submitted herein below: Mistake 1: The Hon'ble ITAT at Page 1, Para 2.1, stated that none appeared called out for hearing. However, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble ITAT did not provide any adequate and reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard. In fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of delay, explaining the reasons and circumstances that led to the delay for onward submission, and the same was only pending for signature from the assessee. In the mean while the Hon'ble ITAT without providing reasonable opportunity passed an ex-parte order. Thus, not only the ld. CIT(A) but even the Hon'ble ITAT has seriously violated the principle of natural justice by adversely commenting and in dismissing the appeal by confirming the order of the CIT (A) only on the aspect of the delayed filing absolutely without giving any opportunity at all to hear the assessee. 3.1. Thus, no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to respond to the said hearing (First hearing date) date. In this regard, the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are concerned with the asst. yr. 1985- 86. For the first time the ITO called upon the assessee to produce the creditors by his letter dt. 7th March, 1988 which was served on the assessee on 9th March, 1988. The rules of natural justice operate as implied mandatory requirement, non-observance of which amounts to arbitrariness and discrimination. The principles of natural justice have been elevated to the status of fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India as is evident from the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 at 1469, holding that the principle of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7) 295 ITR 466 (SC), wherein it was held that: "---------- when prejudice result from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wrong party by the court or Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its power under Sec.254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the decision of the co- ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake, it has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filing the appeal of the assessee and therefore, the assessee was preparing that condonation petition and affidavit thereto and thereby the appeal of the assessee has been disposed of without giving him proper opportunity being heard. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ITAT, Jaipur (supra) praying that the assessee wants to get ITAT's order reviewed in the grab of Miscellaneous Application. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The bench prima facie noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non-appearance and the bench while disposing of the appeal noted that the assessee has not filed written submissions / arguments, controverting the order of ld. CIT(A) an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hand ld. AO did not objected to set aside the case to the file of the ld. AO. 8. Heard the parties perused the record. The bench noted that in this case the assessee has filed the ITR for an amount of Rs. 2,30,830/-. Because of the search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act in the Prince Group certain documents were found and therefore, the case of the assessee based on the information received was subjected to proceeding u/s. 153C of the Act and subsequently due to non compliance by the assessee, assessment was finalised u/s. 144 of the Act determining income at Rs. 6,51,520/-. The bench noted that in this case against the returned income of 2,30,830/- assessed income was determined at Rs. 6,51,520/-, considering ....