9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee along with the return filed on15th Nov., 1983. The Assessing Officer without issuing any notice to the assessee verified the claim of the assessee and found that the audit report was not available from records. He also found that there was no mention of the audit report in the acknowledgement to the IT return. He accordingly held that there was no merit in the application of the assessee filed under s. 154. 2. Assessee appealed to the CIT(A) claiming that the audit report had been furnished along with the return of income vide Receipt No. 36031 dt.15th Nov., 1983. Affidavit of the Chartered Accountant, namely, Shri R.C. Gupta was also filed to the effect that a certificate had been issued on30th July, 1983by him for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered Accountant. There was no reason for the assessee to withhold the audit report. The learned counsel further contended that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was allowed to the assessee. 5. On our query, learned counsel informed us that for asst. yrs. 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, assessee did not earn any profits and as such deduction under s. 80HHA and s. 80J was not allowed to the assessee. However, for asst. yr. 1987-88, assessee had claimed deduction under s. 80HHA which stands allowed. Deduction, according to the learned counsel, has also been allowed in the subsequent assessment year. 6. The learned Departmental Representative, on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of supporting the claim. The Assessing Officer has come to a conclusion that the claim made by the assessee is incorrect. This conclusion has been arrived at without confronting the assessee and without allowing him the opportunity of substantiating the claim. There has been a violation of principles of natural justice. The CIT(A), in our view, is not justified in observing that there was no requirement for an opportunity of being heard to be given to the assessee before disposing of the application under s. 154. In the case of Smart P. Ltd. vs. ITAT (1990) 82 CTR (Del) 34 : (1990) 182 ITR 384 (Del), their Lordships of the Delhi High Court while deciding the issue under s. 254 have held that an opportunity of being heard before disposal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
