1989 (6) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts. The assessee is a State Government Corporation and the Assessing Officer made several disallowances, including the disallowance of special reserve, expenses on Udyog Bandhu Scheme, certain agency charges and other expenses. The detailed facts have been mentioned by the ITO in paras 8, 9 and onwards. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowances by passing one line order, which is reproduced as under: "I have gone through the case records carefully and I am inclined to agree with the Assessing Officer on the two assessments made, except in so far as it relates to deduction claimed under s. 80M of the IT Act, 1961." However, the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction under s. 80M, keeping in view....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the learned CIT(A) ought not to have disposed of these appeals without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The authorised Representative for the assessee has further drawn our attention to ground no. 2 taken by him in the grounds of appeal. During the hearing, on the other hand, the bench enquired from the Departmental Representative whether any cross appeal or cross objection had been filed against the said appeals. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the department has not preferred any cross objection or cross appeals as against the aforesaid appeals. However, he contended that the facts stated by the Authorised Representative for the assessee and the material placed before the Tribunal in the shape of docu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er by filing cross objections or cross appeals in this regard. It was the primary duty of the department to have rebutted the correctness of this ground No. 2 but the failure on the part of the department is indicative of the fact that the contention of the assessee as raised in ground No. 2 is correct. We may further point out that the learned CIT(A) in para 2 of his impugned order has mentioned as under: "The appeals were fixed for hearing on 10th March, 1989 and 14th March, 1989 and the notice for which were sent through post on 27th Feb., 1989 itself. Since nobody attended on behalf of the appellant in these proceedings, the appeals are taken up for decision on merits." Here, it will be relevant to point out that under O. 9 r. 19A....