9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Deletion of excess payment of truck hiring charges and hire charges. 2. Failure to serve notice of hearing on the respondent-assessee. 3. Interpretation of Section 254(1) regarding the right to be heard. 4. Obligations of the IT Department in serving notices. 5. Dismissal of the Revenue's appeal due to failure in service. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the deletion of excess truck hiring charges and hire charges for a specific assessment year. The Revenue contested the deletion of these charges totaling Rs. 2,87,717. The issue arose when the notices of hearing sent to the assessee were returned unserved, prompting the Departmental Representative to take responsibility for serving the notices. Despite multiple attempts to serve the notice, no confirmation was provided on whether the service was successful. The Tribunal, under Section 254(1), emphasized the importance of providing both parties with the opportunity to be heard. However, due to the failure in serving the notice, the adjudication proceedings could not proceed as required by the law. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for proper service of notices in appeals, emphasizing that it is a valuable right for the parties involved. The Departmental Representative's argument that the Tribunal's appeal cannot be dismissed due to incorrect addresses or unserved notices was refuted. The Tribunal asserted that the IT Department, as an executive organ, displayed negligence in serving the notice, impacting the expeditious resolution of tax disputes. It was noted that established practices dictate that if notices cannot be served by post, the IT authorities should handle the service. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's reluctance and technicalities, stating that such practices hinder the fair adjudication of tax disputes. The Tribunal rejected the Departmental Representative's legalistic approach, emphasizing that the Tribunal, as a judicial body, must ensure the effective resolution of disputes between taxpayers and the Revenue. It was noted that the Tribunal's powers include all necessary actions for the execution of its duties, as endorsed by legal precedents. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's rulings to support its decision that incidental and ancillary powers are essential for the effective exercise of substantive powers by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it was within its authority to direct the IT Department to serve the notice on the assessee, given the circumstances. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the Department's failure to serve the notice effectively. The Tribunal highlighted the obligation of the IT Department to ensure proper service of notices in appeals, emphasizing the importance of expeditious resolution of tax disputes. The decision was based on legal principles that grant the Tribunal the authority to exercise all necessary powers for the effective adjudication of tax matters, including the direction to serve notices when required. ---
|
