9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (12) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its return on30-3-1976wherein Rs. 44,483.10 was claimed as exempt from tax on the ground that it represents agricultural income from Collective Farm,Hyderabad. The ITO by his assessment orders dated22-3-1977computed the taxable income of the assessee-HUF at Rs. 45,640. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the AAC, A-Range,New Delhi. The AAC fixed the date of hearing of the appeal before him on9-9-1980. In the impugned orders, he simply observes that none appeared before him on that day and hence the appeal is decided ex parte. He further found that the ITO, after discussing the elaborate reasons in his assessment orders, included the share as income of the appellant from undisclosed sources at Rs. 29,92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es is a statutory imperative and if a party can prove it as a fact that it was never properly served of the notice given by the Appellate Tribunal and therefore was not able to present its case at hearing of the appeal, surely it cannot be said that such a party has had an opportunity of being heard within the meaning and scope of the said sub-section....." It is no doubt true that the above ratio was laid down with reference to section 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, while dealing with the procedure that was to be followed by the Appellate Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. However, the above said ratio is clearly applicable as the language of section 250 of the 1961 Act is also in pari materia with the erstwhile section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, after discussion with the representatives of the petitioner, thoroughly examined the matter and the Board had adopted his report. In my opinion, the statutory authority is required to apply its own mind to the case and its examination by any other officers and mechanical acceptance of his report by the statutory authority does not satisfy the rule of law. Again, the knowledge and, for that matter, conjectures of the petitioner in respect of the reasons, is no substitute for the formal incorporation of the reasons in the impugned order. The petitioner may be entirely mistaken in its assessment of the reasons and nobody will hear (sic) it to say what the reasons were which weighted with the statutory authorities in passing the order. See ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
