9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessee can always take a stand that the person who had appeared had not been authorized to appear. In the instant case, facts had to be adjudicated - if the assessee had an opportunity to place their submissions before the Tribunal, the order would have been more elaborate and a speaking order and it would satisfy the principles of natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem . This opportunity could have been granted to the assessee when they filed the Miscellaneous Petition, which was filed within the reasonable time. The reason assigned by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Petition as to why they sought for adjournment, appears to be a reasonable explanation, more particularly, when the Revenue did not controvert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Act by overlooking the purposive legislation as well as the schematic interpretation of such provisions? 3.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in rejecting the plea for exclusion of the value of factory land and buildings within the purview of charging provisions of the Act even though the said asset was a commercial asset occupied and used for commercial purposes? 3.We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 4.Three questions arise for consideration in the present appeal, the first of which is, whether the Tribunal was right in proceeding ex parte on the ground that the counsel, who was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in fact, the said proviso uses the term shall which conveys the mandatory nature of the power to recall vested with the Tribunal. 5.In the said Miscellaneous Petition, the present counsel, who is appearing for the assessee before us, was engaged. The Tribunal held that there is no mistake, whatsoever, which has been pointed out by the assessee on the decision taken by the Tribunal, dated 25.02.2011, which was on merits and accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed. As mentioned above, the issue is whether the Tribunal should have afforded an opportunity to the assessee to appear and make submissions on merits. The other two substantial questions of law which have been raised are on the aspect whether the Tribunal was cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y could have been granted to the assessee when they filed the Miscellaneous Petition, which was filed within the reasonable time. 7.Before us, elaborate submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 8.The learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Dr.Narayan T. Baddi [Tax Case No.TAXAP/540/2006 dated 16.06.2012] and submitted that the Court had taken note of and followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Maynak Poddar (HUF) v. Wealth Tax Officer reported in (2003) 262 ITR 633 , which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
