Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.54 seconds)Time Media & Entertainment Llp (Earlier ... vs Income Tax Officer 16(1)(5), Mumbai on 18 June, 2019
2. M/s BrollyDealcom LLP vs. ITO (Cal. Trib .)ITA No. 1543/2013
Yum!Restaurants (Market.) Pvt.Ltd. vs C.I.T.,New Delhi on 24 April, 2020
8.1 Th e Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sona Bui lders
(supra) has held that where there was gross breach of the
ITA -48/CHD/2021
A.Y. 2016-17
Page 10 of 13
principles of natural justice, the matter could not be
remanded back to the appropriate authority. In the said
case, the notice of hearing gave only 5 days time to the
parties to respond which included the week end. Same was
found to be inade quate by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It
was also noticed by the Hon'ble court that the allegation
leveled on the assessee was not supported with any
d ocume nt so as to e nable him to respond to the s ame . In
such circumstances, it was held that there was gross breach
of the principles of natural justice on account of inadequate
ti me given to resp ond an d also on account of the fact that
the assessee was not confronted with documents so as to
respond to the same and the Apex Court, therefore,
considering the statutory limit within which the appropriate
authority was to act in the said case and noting his failure
to act in conformity with the principles of natural justice
he ld that the matter could not be remanded to the
appropriate authority and must be set aside.
8.2 In the case of Tuls i Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
assessee was found to have never been issued or served any
notice u/s 263 of the Act. The H on'ble High Cour t hel d that
the Commissioner who had issued order u/s 263 ought to
have been fully satisfied that adequate opportunity had been
ITA -48/CHD/2021
A.Y. 2016-17
Page 11 of 13
given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the
notice u/s 263 of the Act and to explain the situation
concerning such facts and considering the limitation for the
passing of order u/s 263, the Hon'ble Court he ld that no
useful purpose would be served in giving opportunity of
hearing to the assessee at this stage again. Th e order
passed by the CIT was, therefore, set aside in the facts of
the said case.
Smt. Indermani Jatia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P., ... on 3 October, 1958
7. Smt. LilaChaudhary vs. CIT (Gauh. HC)289 ITR 226
M/S. Amira Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs Pr. Cit (C), Gurgaon on 29 November, 2017
9. Amira Enterprises Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (Del. Trib.)ITA No. 3206/2017
Sh. Ankush Singhal, New Delhi vs Pr. Cit, Ghaziabad on 17 May, 2019
8.4 In the case of Anita Rani (supra) the order passed by
the Ld. PCI T was set aside again for the reason that notice
ITA -48/CHD/2021
A.Y. 2016-17
Page 12 of 13
u/s 263 was not served on the assessee, therefore, denying
him due opportunity of hearing.
1