9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and against facts of the case. The AO has erred in valuing the assessee's right to receive compensation as equivalent to the sum of the compensation amount." "3. That the same assessed at Rs. 14,71,796 is arbitrary and excessive." "4. That the learned AO has erred in assessing the interest amount of Rs. 1,27,623." "5. That liability of income-tax and wealth-tax ought to be allowed in full." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee had not paid the admitted tax before filing the refunds of wealth. However, a request was made in the returns of wealth filed requesting the IT Department to adjust the self-assessment tax out of attached bank account, which were attached under the orders of the Court. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the admitted tax was not paid. CWT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeals in limine without deciding on merits of the various grounds raised before him. Aggrieved with the orders of the CWT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the learned authorised representative for the assessee placed copy of assessee's bank a/c with UCo. Bank for the period from 28th June, 1985 to 13th June, 1991, to show that the assessee had not withdrawn any amounts during the above-mentioned period. He submitted that the CWT(A) was not correct in observing that during the period when the accounts were not attached, the assessee had withdrawn substantial amounts but admitted demand was not paid. He further submitted that the assessee had filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. A copy of the order was placed on our file. He further submitted that in the case of Navin Chander Chhote Lal vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs cited and relied upon by the CWT(A), the facts before the Supreme Court were different. In that case first appellate authority had allowed one opportunity directing the appellant to make payment of the admitted tax. Still the assessee had not paid the demand. Thereafter, second appellate authority again allowed second opportunity directing the assessee to make the demand of the admitted tax. The demand was still not paid. Therefore, the matter was decided against the assessee. However, in this case the entire demand stood paid before the appeal was heard and in any case the first appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod the assessee had withdrawn substantial amount. Still, however, no demand for admitted tax was paid. This finding of the CWT(A) has been disputed by the assessee on the ground that the bank a/c had not been released during the relevant period and assessee had not withdrawn any amount. We also find that similar issue had come up for consideration before Tribunal Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Mrs. Kaija Karina Toor vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA Nos. 1474 to 1480/Chandi/95 asst. yrs. 1982-83 to 1988-89 where the Tribunal set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the issue to his file for deciding the same afresh by recording the following finding in para 6 of the order dt. 12th July, 2000: "We have carefully considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relying upon the provisions of s. 249(4) it was obligatory on his part to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeals. Respectfully following the ratio of the decisions of Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Sankari Dutta and of Madras High Court in case of Vijay Hemand Finance and Estates Ltd. we hold that CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals in limine without allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. We, therefore, set aside orders of CIT(A) and restore the matter to file to decide the issue de novo, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the AO. While deciding the appeals afresh, CIT(A) shall also record his finding on merits of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid, is disputed by the assessee. We, therefore, considered it appropriate to set aside the order of CWT(A) and restore the issue to the file of CWT(A) to decide the issue de novo after verifying the fact whether the assessee had actually withdrawn any amount during the period when the account was not attached or the account was ever released during the relevant period and record his fresh finding on this issue keeping in view the ratio of various decisions referred to in this order. Needless to say that the assessee shall be allowed sufficient opportunity of being heard before redeciding the matter. While deciding the appeals afresh, CWT(A) shall record his finding on merits of the various grounds raised in appeals. Accordingly this grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
