9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member Bench. Since the case was heard in violation of the provisions of section 255(3) of the Act, the order of the Tribunal suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of record and the order of the Tribunal dated 12.10.2018 is accordingly recalled. The Registry is directed to fix the case for hearing before the Division Bench in due course. Miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case should not have been heard by a Single Member Bench since it is only in cases where the total income computed by the AO does not exceed ₹ 50 lakhs that a Single Member can hear a case. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Gee City Builders P. Ltd. v CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 688 (P H) wherein the Hon ble High Court in an id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal heard the matter, the total income assessed in the case of assessee was above ₹ 50 lakhs. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that since the income assessed in the hands of assessee was more than ₹ 50 lakhs, the appeal ought not to have been heard by a Single Member Bench. Since the case was heard in violation of the provisions of section 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
