Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
I.T. A No.1410/ KB of 1982-83, heard on 5th July, 1987.
---S. 63--Notice of hearing served on assessee for 29-3-1982--None could attend office on the fixed date--Income-tax Officer instead of proceeding ex parte, decided to conduct an inquiry through his Inspector and then framed an ex parte assessment on 29-4-1982--Held, miscarriage of justice had been caused in the case as it was duty of the Income-tax Officer to issue fresh notice for hearing for 29-4-1982 and it was incumbent upon him to confront assessee with the report of the Inspector--Order of Income-tax Officer was set aside and matter was sent back to I.T.O. for fresh assessment.
Rehmat Ali Shaikh for Appellant.
Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th July, 1987.
This appeal is directed against the order of learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner recorded by him on 19th March, 1983 relating to assessment year 1981-82.
2. The brief facts giving rise to it are that the appellant, a lady doctor, owned a clinic during the relevant year and declared her income from it at Rs.18,820/-. She also claimed her expenses at Rs.27,040/- which ultimately resulted in net loss of Rs.18,820. The Income Tax Officer, however, estimated .her income from her clinic at Rs.25,000/-. Moreover, he further estimated her income from OPD at Rs.36,000/- and thus estimated total income at Rs.61,000/- as against the declared income of Rs.18,820/-. Applying GP rate of 75% and allowing expenses of Rs.20,790/- the Income Tax Officer estimated the income at Rs.24,960/-. It appears that assessment was framed on 29th April, 1982. Having been aggrieved and dissatisfied the appellant went up in appeal, but the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced OPD receipts from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and otherwise confirmed the order of Income Tax Officer. The appellant feels aggrieved and has come up in second appeal.
3. Mr. Rehmat Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended before me that the hearing notice was served on the appellant for 29th March,1982. According to the learned counsel, none could attend on this date. However, the Income fax Officer instead of proceeding ex parte decided to conduct an inquiry through his Inspector and then on 29th April, 1982 framed ex parte assessment. The learned counsel submitted that the order of Income Tax Officer was not sustainable in law firstly because no notice for 29th April, 1982 was served on the appellant and, secondly, because the appellant was not confronted with the report of the Inspector. Mr. Abdul Ghani Channa, the learned Departmental Representative, however, supported both the officers below.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Departmental Representative. I think that miscarriage of justice has been caused in this case. It was the duty of the Income Tax officer to issue fresh hearing notice for April 29, 1982. It was also imcombent upon him to confront the appellant with the report of the Inspector. Since he has failed to comply with both these mandatory provisions of law, I feel very much constrained to set aside the impugned order and send the matter back to Income Tax Officer for fresh assessment.
5. I, therefore, allow this appeal and after setting aside the impugned order send the matter back to Income Tax Officer with the direction that he should frame fresh assessment according to law.
M.B.A/414/T Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer