9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and considering the facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view, that the Tribunal ought to have heard the petitioner and also ought to have dealt with the specific contentions regarding factual errors, by giving proper findings. Hence, we do hereby, quash and set aside the said impugned order dated August 28, 2003, and remand back the matter to the Tribunal to consider the said miscella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1999-2000. The petitioner found certain apparent mistakes in the aforesaid order. Therefore, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for rectification of those mistakes. Shri Shivram by way of example pointed out that with regard to para. 11 of the above order of the Tribunal, the petitioner had pointed out as under in the said miscella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Thus, applying incorrect GP rate to arrive at derived stock would definitely result in working out incorrect closing stock. This important and factual aspect of the matter is not looked into at all by the hon'ble Bench." During the pendency of the above miscellaneous application, the petitioner had filed an Income-tax Appeal No. 622 of 2003, before this court. Later, the petitioner withdrew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GP of 7.26 per cent. was as per majority of bills is contrary to the factual position. He also pointed out that the above order was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no personal hearing was given. Even Shri Suresh Kumar could not dispute that no hearing was given to the petitioner, before the impugned order was passed, however, he sought to be justify the order contending th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
