9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved are that the Revenue filed IT Appeal No. 484 (Asr.)/1985 against the order dated 31-5-1985 recorded by the CIT (Appeals), Jalandhar by which assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was annulled on the ground that the assessment order for the relevant year 1981-82 was not passed by the Assessing Officer within the statutory time limit which expired on 31-3-1984. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal of the revenue observed that the identical issue came up for consideration in the case of J.M.P. Mfg. Co. [IT Appeal Nos. 221 and 381 (Asr.) of 1985] and in the case of Hare Ram Soap Chemicals Industries [IT Appeal No. 282 (Asr.) of 1985] in which the Tribunal concluded that assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The M.A. has come from the assessee against this order. 4. So far as the facts involved in other Miscellaneous Applications are concerned, the identical question was referred to the Hon'ble High Court and it stands decided in favour of the revenue and M.A. has come against the order recorded under section 260(1) of the Act by the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee had pointed out that there was apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal to the effect that while passing the order under section 260(1) of the Act the Tribunal has not given out an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and appeal of the revenue has been allowed in toto while other issues remained to be decided. The learned counsel for the assessee poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well as the case of CIT v. P. Krishna Warrier [1994] 208 ITR 283 and pointed out that no infirmity in the order and order under section 260(1) of the Act recorded by the Tribunal is in, conformity with the order of the Hon'ble High Court and requires no rectification. 7. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and after perusal of the record carefully, we are of the opinion that the miscellaneous applications moved by the assessees deserve to be allowed. The only point at present to be scrutinised is as to whether an opportunity was to be given to the parties before passing an order under section 260(1) of the Act and particularly when the order of the Tribunal was reversed by the Hon'ble High Court in the reference applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, the Tribunal would be under a duty to dispose of the case conformably with the opinion of the High Court and on the merits of the dispute. In all cases, however, opportunity must be afforded to the parties of being heard." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted with approval the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITAT v. S. C. Cambatta and Co. Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 118 as well as another decision of the same High Court in the case of Rajkumar Mills Ltd. v. ITAT [1958] 33 ITR 750. 8. From the perusal of the above direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is very much evident that an opportunity of being heard was to be given to the assessee before passing an order under section 260(1) of the Act and particularly wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
