9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal challenging CIT(A) order as erroneous. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order of the CIT(A) as erroneous. The counsel for the assessee argued that the CIT(A) rushed through the proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The counsel highlighted that the hearing was fixed after a significant delay, and despite the advocate's illness, the CIT(A) failed to consider the adjournment request. The counsel contended that the CIT(A) did not follow the principles of natural justice and failed to inform the assessee about the rejection of the adjournment request. Additionally, it was argued that the CIT(A) did not apply his mind to the detailed submissions, making the order arbitrary and illegal. The counsel sought the order to be set aside, referring to a relevant decision. On the other hand, the Revenue representative defended the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and cited relevant case law, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach to advance substantial justice. Referring to previous court decisions, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of giving the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard. While the Revenue did not strongly object to remitting the matter back to the CIT(A), the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remit it to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh, giving the assessee a fair hearing and considering all relevant material before passing a speaking order in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
