9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detail as the point arising in the case lies in a narrow compass. The short point is that the Commissioner of Income-tax while hearing the revision did not give an opportunity to the party of being heard. The correct facts are given in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax. It is stated that a letter was sent to the petitioner on 19th of September, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was given and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. This contention has no substance. It is well-known that many irrelevant things are mentioned in written submissions and, moreover, a judge might not properly appreciate the implication of relevant submissions given in writing. It sometimes happens that despite clear arguments advanced by the advocates, the judges need fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al argument before the Income-tax Commissioner who should have fixed a date for hearing and given an opportunity to the party to say what he had got to say through his counsel. The point is no longer res integra. It is concluded by the Supreme Court decision in Dwarka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D-Ward, Kanpur. The revision in that case was under section 33A(2) of the Indian Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
