9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. It is a trite law as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in case Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad [ 1999 (9) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT ] that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner . Therefore, in the absence of clear authorisation in the statue permitting the Ld. NFAC to culminate proceedings without touching merits is inconsonance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, hence the impugned order on very terms qualifies to be set-aside on this score too. For the aforestated two reasoning, without touching merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand it back to the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The return of income filed by the assessee declaring total income of ₹ 15,57,630/- on 09/01/2021 was selected for scrutiny by service of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. During the course of assessment, the Ld. AO vide six separate notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act called upon the assessee to substantiate explain as genuineness of huge expenditure incurred by him against the gross commission of ₹ 1,01,42,998/- earned towards (a) salary ₹ 50,20,500/- (b) vehicle expenses ₹ 1,66,200/- (c) Travelling ₹ 2,65,030/- (d) Petrol ₹ 16,56,350/- (e) Meeting Mngt Expenses ₹ 1,82,090/-. The written submission in support of expenditure incurred by the assessee did not inspire the Ld. AO, who after pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisite details in less than a period of seven days. Ostensibly, these two opportunities of hearing granting the appellant allowing less than a reasonable period of fifteen days in each case in our considered view clearly suggest these were only a paper opportunity granted to create audit trail and not with an intent to seek real compliance. This period of seven days allowed to appellant to comply in our considered opinion is not a reasonable period, because the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. This is so held in CIT Vs Panna Devi Saraogi [1970, 78 ITR 728 (Cal.)] We also mindful to quote here that, in the case of Smt. Ritu Dev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to observe the principle of Audi alteram partem in letter in its true spirit. 9. On the other hand, we also note that, in absence written submission/representation etc., the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in-limine for non-prosecution. However, while dismissing the appeal ex-parte, the Ld. NFAC did fail to adjudicate the dispute on merits on the basis of material already made available on record by the appellant. We are heedful to the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act which obligates the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue either by confirming or annulling the addition or reducing or enhancing the addition made by the assessing officer without the right to remand the matter back. However, while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
