1986 (4) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as duly served on him but by mistake the assessee s representative noted the date of hearing as 2nd May, 1983 instead of 2nd June, 1983. He could not inform the assessee. It was a genuine mistake and, therefore, there was no intention to defy the notice. Reliance was placed upon CIT vs. S.C. Chinnappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 (SC) for the proposition that it is open to an authority to rehear a is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at length in these appeals. The point of course is a ticklish one, but after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by authorities below. Our reasons for the conclusions are simple. The powers of the AAC are contained in s. 251. In the present case, he was not hearing any appeal against the order of assessment or pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tter back to the AAC for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. If the AAC himself has chosen to hold that there was sufficient cause for the assessee s absence in the first instance we do not see any thing wrong in his doing so. In fact, our feeling is that the Department should not have even come in appeals against an order passed by its own responsible officer o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X