TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 923
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ications have been filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 01.08.2023 on various grounds. 2. Since, the facts involved in both the Miscellaneous Applications are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order in both the Miscellaneous Applications. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee had challenged the final assessment order passed by the ld. AO/TPO relevant to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17 before the Tribunal on various grounds and the Tribunal vide order dated 01.08.2023 had allowed both the appeals filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred the present Miscellaneous Applications for recalling the order passed by the Tribunal on the grounds of violation of pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble Apex Court. The ld. DR prayed that the order of the Tribunal be recalled on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The ld. AR on the other hand, controverted the said fact and stated that the Revenue was given adequate opportunity of hearing and hence there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the ld. AR contended that the Revenue's allegation that the assessee has suppressed the information that in assessee's case, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has already seized of the matter with respect to proceedings u/s 195 of the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23 is also factually wrong for the reason that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 has categorically s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the file of the appeal has been reconstructed which was also duly verified by the AO who had given no objection to the documents furnished by the assessee as stated by the ld. DR during the hearing on 20.03.2026. Earlier to that on 27.02.2026, the bench had directed the ld. DR to verify the records and had adjourned to the next date of hearing i.e. 20.03.2026. It is also observed that there was also direction from the bench requiring the Registry to put up the original appeals which were sent to Jaipur Bench, on the next date of hearing directing the assessee to file the relevant papers on the next date of hearing. Subsequent to this, the appeal was heard finally on 03.05.2023 which day both the ld. AR as well as the ld. DR was present ph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1966 AIR 671, wherein it was held that in case of personal hearing or written representation, it is not necessary that mere consideration of written representation without personal hearing would necessarily tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice unless the said decision is adverse to any of the parties without giving an effective opportunity of hearing. We also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Carborundum Universal Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, (1989) 180 ITR 171 (SC) where the said proposition was reiterated. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced hereinunder for ease of reference:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us of the fact that the Tribunal, if had failed to consider or adjudicate the material contention forming part of the record, thereby causing prejudice, rather than merely for the reason that the party to the proceeding wants the matter to be reconsidered afresh on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, then, the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act can be invoked and not ordinarily be converted into a review on merits. This distinction has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, AIR ONLINE 2007 SC 323 wherein it was held that the fundamental principle of Section 254(2) is that "no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee o....