9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter, it is in the interest of justice that a fresh opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the petitioners. – Order of commissioner is not correct - - - - - Dated:- 25-7-2003 - Judge(s) : PRAKASH KRISHNA. JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA J.-This writ petition has been pressed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated November 30, 1999, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra. The Commissioner of Income-tax by a common order has disposed of five revisions filed under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. These revisions were filed against the assessment order passed on March 12, 1997, for the assessment year 1988-89. The petitioners entered into a partnership agreement on Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .B. Khare, advocate of New Delhi, but on account of his prior professional commitments, Shri Khare asked the petitioners to seek adjournment on November 30, 1999. For this purpose the petitioners engaged Shri Kuldeep Arora, a chartered accountant of Mathura to seek adjournment before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra. It has been further stated in para. 25 that on November 30, 1999, petitioner No. 2 and Shri Hari Om Agrawal along with Shri Kuldeep Arora appeared on November 30, 1999, before respondent No. 2 and sought the adjournment. Respondent No. 2 refused to entertain the request for adjournment and informed the chartered accountant to argue the matter on the merits. It has been further stated that Shri Arora was engaged only for a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnment application was sought to be filed by the petitioners on November 30, 1999. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, November 16, 1999, was the first date fixed in the matter. According to the petitioners they attended the office on November 16, 1999 and were told that a fresh date will be fixed for which necessary information shall be given. Thereafter November 30, 1999 was the date fixed and the information of the said date was given through a letter dated November 17, 1999. The controversy between the parties as to whether on that date the adjournment was sought by the petitioners or not. In the impugned order it is mentioned that on November 30,1999, no one attended. The petitioners have come forward w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer in any manner in case the impugned order is quashed. A dispute as far as possible should be decided on the merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. In such matters the court should adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach. (Collector Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471; AIR 1987 SC 1353). In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated November 30, 1999, passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to hear and decide the revisions afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the matter and shall extend full co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
