9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is a registered firm working under the name and style of M/s. Nand Parkash Co., 35, The Mall, Shimla. Its business is that of transportation of goods. It was assessee's first assessment year. It filed return on 16-10-1984 declaring loss of Rs. 43,784 along with TDS certificates for the total amount received (including Rs. 1,53,909 received). On the basis of this return, assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 26-3-1985 on a total income of Rs. 11,890. This assessment order is it pages 10 and 11of the paper-book. The assessing authority also made an order under section 185(1)(a) granting registration to the newly constituted firm as all legal formalities had been fulfilled and the firm was a genuine one. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r office at Patiala, the Commissioner again issued a notice under section 263. In this notice, the Commissioner has observed that, " it is noticed that order dated 26-3-1985 and 23-9-1985 under section 143(3) and under section 144 is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue within the meaning of that expression occurring in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since the Income-tax Officer erred in not assessing the payment of Rs. 1,53,909 ". The assessee has filed a copy of this show-cause notice along with a photostat of the postal envelope in which the notice was received. The notice is shown as received on 2-4-1987. The Commissioner made the impugned order on 30-3-1987. By this order he held that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is a sine qua non for lawful assumption of jurisdiction. Not only this, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. R.K. Metal Works [1978] 112 ITR 445, has laid down that in passing order of revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is necessary for the Commissioner to state in what manner he considered that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and what the basis was for such a conclusion. 10. Now, when we examine the notice issued by the Commissioner on 19-3-1987, we find it bereft of all judicial requirements. This is a letter by way of show-cause notice signed by the steno of the Commissioner for the Commissioner. Unfortunately, for the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Commissioner. 11. The Commissioner issued another notice under section 263 on 26-3-1987 and it is received by the assessee on 2-4-1987. The impugned order of the Commissioner is dated 30-3-1987. The order is made before the notice was served upon the assessee. It is apparently in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. We do not know the reasons why the Commissioner made the order before he received a response to the show-cause notice from the assessee issued on 26-3-1987. The notice issued on 26-3-1987 was to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee on 30-3-1987. Even if very expeditious postal transit from Patiala to Shimla be considered, notice dated 26-3-1987 asking the assessee to be before the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
