9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The facts mentioned in the counter affidavit would disclose that the petitioner has failed to avail an opportunity of hearing, despite having been served with notices. Therefore, the petitioner probably cannot contend that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Revisional order u/s 264 without affording an opportunity of hearing - Question of giving an opportunity of hearing by the Revisional Authority is concerned, though Section 264 does not specifically provides giving an opportunity of hearing, but the opportunity of hearing has to be read in the provision, inasmuch as the revisional order has civil consequences and without affording a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 142(1) was issued to the petitioner on 21.11.2019 requiring the petitioner to explain the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The petitioner did not file any reply to the said notice. A letter dated 02.12.2019 was addressed to the petitioner asking the petitioner to file his objection/explanation for the proposed addition of Rs.10,00,000/- being cash deposit during the demonetization period. The petitioner choose not to respond to the said letter also. 3. 24.12.2019 was the last date for the response as per Ext.P6, the said letter was also duly delivered to the email address of the petitioner. Despite these opportunities, the petitioner did not file any reply, and thereafter, the order was passed on 25.12.2019. 4. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner by the Revisional Authority, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the scheme of Section 264 of the I.T Act of 1961 does not contemplate providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. I have considered the submissions. This Court does not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The facts mentioned in the counter affidavit would disclose that the petitioner has failed to avail an opportunity of hearing, despite having been served with notices. Therefore, the petitioner probably cannot contend that he was not afforded an opportunity of hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
