9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this variation in dates in both the orders could be given by the ld. CIT-DR. In the order-sheet there is a noting of only one date of hearing, i.e., 28.11.2014 on which date the assessee was directed to file chart/submission and time was granted up to 05.12.2014. However, thereafter there is no other noting whether any further hearing took place or not. DRP has passed the order without allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the DRP and restore the matter back to its file. We direct the DRP to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and thereafter pass a speaking order in respect of assessee s objections in accordance with law. Assessee s appeal is deemed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f being heard to the assessee is illegal, void and should be quashed and consequently, resultant assessment order should also be quashed. 4. The ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, stated that there is a typographical error in the order of the DRP. He stated that the original order of the DRP as available on the file of the DRP is dated 09.12.2014. He produced before us the file of the DRP in which there is an order of the DRP signed by all the three CITs and the date mentioned on the said order is 09.12.2014. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the DRP is a valid order which has been passed in accordance with law after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He has also produced before us the photocopy of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the act passed by the ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda. Notice issued today scheduling the hearing in this case for 28/11/2014 at 4.45 PM. 28.11.2014 at 3.45 PM Shri V.K. Mongotra, advocate, and Nitin Dalmia from KPMG attend. The case is heard. The AR was asked to file a chart/submission regarding COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND RECONCILIATION STATEMENT provision for doubtful Loans and advances. Time granted upto 5/12/2014." 7. From the above, it is evident that first entry is dated 11.11.2014 which records the issue of notice for hearing on 28.11.2014. On 28.11.2014, there is a noting as per which the assessee was asked to file a chart/submission and time was granted up to 05.12.2014. Thereafter, there is no noting on the order-sheet either for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so not legible. After considering the totality of the facts and the arguments of both the sides, in our opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the order of the DRP is set aside, because in our opinion certainly adequate opportunity of being heard is not allowed by the DRP to the assessee. There are different dates mentioned in the order of the DRP supplied to the assessee and the order in the file of the DRP. No satisfactory explanation for this variation in dates in both the orders could be given by the ld. CIT-DR. In the order-sheet there is a noting of only one date of hearing, i.e., 28.11.2014 on which date the assessee was directed to file chart/submission and time was granted up to 05.12.2014. However, thereafter there is no ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
