1

CHART FOR APPEALS UNDER CHAPTER XXPARTICULARS INCOME TAX 1.Orders Appealable 2.Time Limit of Filing the Appeal. 3.Prescribed Form No. 4.Who can file Appeal 5.Fees Payable CIT(A) Sec. 246 to 251 Mentioned u/s.246A Within 30 Days from the date of Receipt of Notice of Demand. Form No. 35. (As per Rule 45) Aggrieved Assessee Rs.250/- where the Assessed Income is Rs.1 lakh or less; more than Rs.1 lakh but less than Rs.2 lakh-Rs.500/- and more than Rs.2 lakh-Rs.1000/TRIBUNAL Sec. 252 to 255 Mentioned u/s. 253. Within 60 Days from the date of Service of CIT(A)'s order. Form No. 36. (As per Rule 47(1)) Aggrieved Assessee or Commissioner. Rs.500/- where the Income assessed is Rs.1 lakh or less, Rs.1,500/- where the income assessed is more than Rs.1 lakh but less than rs.2lakh and 1% of assessed income, subject fee maximum of Rs.10,000/where the income assessed income is more than 2 lakhs. Form No.36, Grounds of Appeal, Copy of Order against which appeal is preferred, & Documents filed before the CIT(A) as referred in the column. Triplicate. Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal. Form No. 36 A. (As per Rule 47(1)) Within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of appeal filed by other party. No Fees Payable. Rs.500/(w.e.f.1/10/1998) [per application as per the decision of the Tribunal] Stay Petition, Rejection order for stay by CIT & Assessing Officer Affidavit, orders of lower authorities & documents furnished to them. Rs.50/(w.e.f. 1/10/98) Miscellaneous Application Petition, order of the Tribunal, Affidavit HIGH COURT Sec. 260A & 260B Mentioned U/s. 260A Within 120 days from the date of Communication of Appellate Tribunal order. As per High Court original side Rules. Aggrieved Assessee or Commissioner. Ad-volarem fee leviable on the amount in dispute, i.e. the difference between the amount of tax actually assessed and the amount of tax admitted by the assessee as payable by him, subject to a maximum of Rs.10,000/- (only by assessee). {As per Article 16A to Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act}. Memo of Appeal; Statement of facts, orders of the lower authorities and documents relied upon the Tribunal and lower authorities.

6.Documents to be Filed.

Form No.35, Grounds of Appeal, Statement of Facts, Copy of Order against which appeal is preferred, Notice of Demand and original challan of filing fees.

7. Documents to be Submitted in : 8.Place of Filing.

Duplicate. CIT(A) as mentioned in the Notice of Demand. ---------

Duplicate. One copy to be served on Respondent. Respective High Court.

Cross Objection. 1.Prescribed Form No. 2.Time Limit for filing the Cross Objection. 3.Fees Payable. Stay Application 1. Fees Payable 2. Documents to be filed.

Rule 22 of order XLI of CPC Within 30 days form date of service of the appeal. -----

---

---

Miscellaneous Application 1) Fees Payable 2) Documents to be filed

-----

-----

2

PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO APPEALS & REVISIONS UNDER THE I. T. ACT, 1961. By Shri Ajay R. Singh Advocate KSA Legal Chambers INTRODUCTION

Right of Appeal is a creature of Statute. A person has no inherent right of appeal and hence, it cannot come under the category of fundamental rights An appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings. Assessment proceedings complete when appeal against order of assessment is decided by Tribunal CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562(Guj.)

A.

FIRST APPEAL: Section 246 confers the right to appeal before the CIT(A) in respect of orders specified u/s. 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

1. 1.1

WHO CAN FILE APPEAL? - AGREED ASSESSMENT "Every Assessee aggrieved" by any of the orders mentioned in Section 246 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has a right to prefer an appeal. In Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT 168 ITR 375 (380) (Bom), it has been held that where an assessee has made a statement on facts, there can be no grievance if he is taxed on the basis of that statement. As there is no grievance, there can be no appeal. When an Assessing Officer states in the Order that the Assessee agreed for addition, he cannot file an appeal unless he challenges the observation of the Assessing Officer by filing Affidavit - Western India Automobiles v. CIT 112 ITR 1048 (Bom).

1.2

Assessee should

make application u/s.154 of the Act, challenging the

observation of the Assessing Officer and should also file an appeal specifically urging that he has not agreed for additions and the same should be supported by an Affidavit.

1.3

The Honble Bombay High Court in case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramanin CIT 92004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any

3

estoppel against statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. 1.4 a) b) Order Giving effect to Appellate order : Appealable : CIT vs. Industrial Machinery manufacturing P. Ltd. (2006) 282 ITR 595 (Guj.) Bakelite Hylam Ltd. vs. CIT 171 ITR 344(AP) Against ANZ Grindlays Bank PLC vs. CIT 241 ITR 269 (Cal.) 1.5 Where he Department denies its liability to pay interest an refund of self assessment tax, the issue is appealable : Sec. 244A Dy. CIT vs. BSES Ltd. (2008) 113 TTj 227 (Mum)(para 19.6) 2. 2.1 PROCEDURE : GROUNDS OF APPEAL & STATEMENT OF FACTS The same should be concise without any argumentative or narrative. The grounds should highlight the main controversy in issue. The grounds should not be vague, general or too lengthy. 2.2 3. The Statement of Facts should be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). DELAY IN FILING APPEAL: An application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit stating the reasons for delay should be filed alongwith the appeal. 3.1 In Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mrs. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts should have pragmatic & liberal approach in admitting the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Also see N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and State of Nagaland vs. Lipuk A.O. 2005 (183) E.L.T. 337 (SC)

4

4. 4.1

PAYMENT OF TAX MANDATORY BEFORE FILING APPEAL. Section 249(4) provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless at the time of filing the appeal the assessee has paid the taxes due on the returned income or where no return is filed, an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him. The tax due does not include interest element. CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Beriwal (2009) 316 ITR 218 (Bom)

4.2

Case Laws: Once the assessee has complied with the provisions Appeal be heard on merit: i) ii) v) 84 ITD 55 (Chennai) Subbiah Nadur & Sons vs. ACIT M/s. Kautuabally a. Ariwala vs. ITO ITA No. 5329/M/2002, dated 1/3/2004 J.K. Chaturvedi vs. Astt. CIT 2004 (3) SOT 456 Ahd.

5.

Defect in Appeal: Defect in Appeal can be rectified by an amendment. The Assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the defect: a) b) c) Malani Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 670 (Bom) BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) 281 ITR 99 (Bom) (Aurangabad Bench) Procedural defect must be intimated to be appellant CIT vs. Calcutta Discount 91 ITR 8 (SC)

6. 6.1

Hearing: Assessee should file written submission and paper book. The CIT(A) has power to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct the A.O. to make further inquiry and report to him. Assessee is entitled to reply to the remand report.

6.2

The CIT(A) has to pass a speaking order dealing which each grounds of appeals. The CIT(A) should pass the order on merits even though heard exparte / or assessee did not appear. - CIT vs. Chennaippa 74 ITR 41 (SC)

5

The CIT(A) cannot apply Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD 320, Decision and dismiss the assessees appeal. Gujarat Themis Biosyn ltd v/s. Jt CIT 74 ITD 339 (Ahd). 7. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE If the assessee is been prevented by good, sufficient or reasonable cause or adequate time is not allowed such fresh evidence can be placed before the appellate authority by making a Application U/R. 46A. 7.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting additional

evidence produced before him Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom); Dwarika Prasad v. ITO 63 ITD 1 (Patna)(TM). 7.2 Under Rule 46A(4) the CIT(A) on its own discretion can ask the assessee to produce documents or evidence. Additional evidence gathered by the CIT(A) on his own is not required to be produced before A.O. for his comments. 8. 8.1 Dy. CIT vs. Thoresen Chartery Singapore (2009) 118 ITD 416 (Mum) ITO vs. Jitender Mehra 53 ITD 396 (Del.) CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2004) 265 ITR 217 (Ker.) ITO vs. Indl. Roadways (2008) 305 ITR 219 (Mum(AT).

RAISING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS Sub-section 5 of Section 250 gives power to the Commissioner (A) to allow the appellant to raise additional ground if he is satisfied that the omission of that ground was not wilful or unreasonable. a) b) Jute Corp. of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) Heinrichde Frics GMBH vs. Jt. CIT 281 ITR 18 (Mum)(AT)

9. 9.1

JURISDICTION POINT. The Assessee can raise the jurisdiction point for levy of penalty at any time. Union of India v. Rai Singh Dal Singh 88 ITR 200 (SC), CIT v. Dumravan Cold Storage & Refrigerators Services 97 ITR 137 (Pat), The Assessee can raise the jurisdictional point before the Tribunal also inrespect of

6

reassessment proceedings. As it is a question of law which goes to the root of the matter. 10. MAKING A CLAIM FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY 10.1 If there was evidence or material on record, then only a claim made for the first time be entertained by the Appellate Authority. CIT v. Western Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. 154 ITR 54 (Bom). 10.2 The Board have issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude which the Officers of assessees the Department should adopt in dealing with in matters affecting their interests and convenience. Circular

No.14(XL-35) of 1955, C.No.13(207)-IT/50, dated 11th April, 1955, states that the Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. 10.3 However the recent decision of S.C. in the case Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that it was open to the assessee to raise new points of law before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has such powers u/s. 254 of the Act. 10.4. A.O. is bound to assess the correct income and for this purpose the Assessing officer may grant reliefs / refund sou motu or can do so on being pointed out by the assessee in the case of assessment proceedings for which assessee has not filed a revised return. Case Laws After Considering Goetze (India) Ltd. (Supra) a) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mum) (273) b) In CIT v Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), the court held that the Tribunal has the power to decide the issue..

7

c)

In CIT vs. Ramco International (2009) 221 CTR 491 (P & H) held that claim u/s. 80IB was admissible even without a revised return.

10.5 However, the A.O. cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revise return. In case where assessment is not pending and the time available for filing a revised return is also expired, the only remedy is to seek extension of time u/s. 119(2) from the Board for filing a delayed return in case of genuine hardship. The assessee can also file rectification Application u/s. 154 on facts of the case or make a application to CIT u/s 264. 11. POWERS OF THE CIT(A) . In following cases it has been held that the CIT(A) has the power to Stay the Recovery Proceedings. Prem Prakash Tripathi v. CIT 208 ITR 461 (All). Tin Mfg. Co. India Ltd. v. CIT 212 ITR 451 (All). Paulsons Litho Works v. ITO 208 ITR 676 (Mad); Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 371 (Pat.), Smita Agrawal (Ind.) vs. CIT 184 Taxman 59(All) 11.2 Power of Enhancement The CIT(A) has power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annual the assessment; confirm or cancel or vary or enhance or to reduce the penalty and may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.. However the CIT(A) should give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The filing of an appeal may lead to grave consequences of enhancement of assessment. 11.3 The CIT(A) powers u/s. 251 are vide enough to include the power to examine all matters covered by the assessment order and to correct the assessment. 166 ITR 494 (MP) Indermal Natwarlal vs. CIT 206 ITR 574 (Guj) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Crucible Co. 131 ITR 451 (SC) Kapoorchand Shrimal vs. CIT

11.1 Power to Stay the Recovery Proceedings

8

305 ITR 310 (Chennai) AT Ansaldo Energia SPA vs. Astt. DIT

B. 1.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE I.T.A.T INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court in Ajay Gandhi & Anr. Vs. B. Singh & Ors.: (2004) 265 ITR 451 (SC) observed : The Tribunal exercises judicial functions and has the trappings of a Court.

2. 2.1

TIME LIMIT FOR PREFERRING APPEAL An appeal should be filed within Sixty days of the receipt of the order of the Commissioner (A) in the prescribed Form No. 36. In case of delay in filing the appeal, on Application for condonation of delay alongwith the affidavit of the assessee and supporting document must be filed alongwith the appeal.

3. 3.1

GROUNDS OF APPEAL As per Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, every memorandum of appeal shall be written in English. The same should be concise without any argument or narrative.

4. 4.1

CROSS OBJECTIONS. If the assessee or the Assessing Officer prefers an appeal to the Tribunal u/s.253(1) or (2), as the case may be, and the appeal is not rejected under rule 12 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, a notice is given by the Tribunal to the respondent informing him of the fact of such filing, also enclosing the memorandum and grounds of appeal. The respondent can file, u/s.253(4), a memorandum of cross objections in Form No.36A, within 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice, against any part of the order of the first appellate authority deciding any issue against him. The cross objection filed is registered and numbered. It should be heard alongwith the original appeal.

9

4.2

In absence of Cross appeal the Respondent still has Right to agitate its point via R. 27 of Income tax Appellate Tribunal Rules: Dahod Suhakar Kharid 282 ITR 321 (Guj.) Dy. CIT vs. Turquoise Invest. 299 ITR 143 (MP) B.R. Bamsi vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 223 Bom (245 246) Assam Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 423 (Gauh.) (Pg. 439-440) Dy. CIT vs. Bifora Watch Co. 94 ITD 203 (Mum) (TM) Pg. 211 Para 21 Smt. Narasamma vs. Asst. CIT (2002) 75 TTJ 298 (Bang.) (Para 4 Pg. 302) The Tribunal has the discretion to allow any party to an appeal may be the appellant or the respondent to raise a new point or new contention provided two conditions are satisfied: a) No new facts are required to be brought on record for disposing of such new point. b) An opportunity is given to the other side to meet the point.

5.

Monetary Limits for filing appeal: Tax effect CBDT Instruction No.2 dt. 24/10/2005 prescribing Monetary limits for filing appeal by the Department. [(2005) 198 CTR 41 (St)] Tax effect a) b) c) Appeal before ITAT Appeal before High Court Appeal before the S.C. Rs. 2 lacs Rs. 4 lacs Rs. 10 lacs

(Also see Instruction No. 5/2008, dated 15/5/2008 wherein it has been held that for the purpose of tax effect interest will not be included. Similarly in loss cases notional tax effect should be taken into account. In cases of penalty order the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty.) In cases involving substantial question of law of importances as well as cases where the same question of law will be repeatedly arise it should be considered separately on merits.

10

Decisions : CBDT instruction binding on Revenue (2009) 222 CTR 328 (Bom) CIT vs. Polycott Corporation 276 ITR 519 (Bom) CIT vs. Pithwa Engg. Works (2002) 254 ITR 565 (Bom) CIT vs. Camo Colour Co. (2006) 100 ITD 555 (Raj.) Asstt. CIT vs. Rajoo Eng. Ltd. 6. 6.1 POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL Every appellate authority has implied and incidental power to grant relief even if the statute does not provide. Bulk India Transport 266 ITR 144 (All) Mohammed Katri 71 ITR 815 (SC) 6.3 6.4 To issue appropriate direction :Kapurchand Shrimal 131 ITR 451 (SC) Right of assessee is not restricted to the plea raised by him. It is the duty of the authority to allow relief on any other ground, if permissible -

Ciba of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 1 (Bom) CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Textiles Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC)

6.5

Revenue cannot be given second innings to improve its case to make an addition. 216 ITR 99 (AT) ITO vs. Gurubachansingh J. Juneja (Ahmed.) 73 ITD 125 (Del) (TM) ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd. Power to Admit Additional Grounds

6.6

Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, provides that the appellant shall not except, by leave of Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal. However, the Tribunal is competent to allow the appellant to raise at the hearing of the appeal an additional ground even without a formal amendment of the memorandum of appeal. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC),

11

6.7

Question of Law is concerned, additional grounds can be raised at any time Jute Corporation of India v. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom); Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons v. CIT 24 ITR 362 (372) (Bom); J.S. Parkar v. V. B. Palekar 94 ITR 616(Bom); 262 ITR 385 (Bom) Baby Samuel vs. Astt. CIT, Asha Martime (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 314 ITR 249 (Mum)(AT). Power to admit Additional Evidences before the Tribunal

6.8

Rule 29 does not confer any right on the parties as such to produce any additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. Such power has been vested only in the Tribunal to admit fresh evidences & affidavits, etc. - CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani 214 ITR 15 (Bom); Dy.CIT v. Vira Construction Co. 61 ITD 33 (Mum)(TM). Where additional evidence enables the Tribunal to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, it can require the parties to do so - Abhay Kumar Shroff v. ITO 63 ITD 144 (Patna)(TM - Jagbir Singh v. ITO 23 ITD 15; Electra (Jaipur) (P.) Ltd. v. IAC 26 ITD 236

6.9

Power of Enhancement.. The Tribunal is not empowered to do indirectly what it cannot directly do V. Ramaswamy Iyengar vs. CIT 40 ITR 377 (Mad); Pathikonda Balasubba Setty (Deceased) vs. CIT 65 ITR 252 (Mys.); Mc Crop Global (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 309 ITR 434 (SC)

6.10 An appellant cannot be worse off by being in appeal before Tribunal 7. 7.1 Integrated Feeder Containers Services vs. Jt. CIT 2005 (4) SOT 357 (Mum) Jt. CIT vs. Sakura Bank Ltd. 100 ITD 215 (Mum)

EX-PARTE ORDER. Applications made for restoration of appeals which are dismissed ex-parte on account of non-appearance, desire to be liberally construed. Rainbow Agri Ind. Ltd. vs. ITAT (2004) 266 ITR 39 (Bom)

12

8. 8.1

DUTIES OF TRIBUNAL. Tribunal being a final authority as far as facts is concerned, the Tribunal has to consider and decide all issues that are brought before it and pass reasoned order / speaking order : Manibyrabha vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 560 (Ker) CIT vs. Bright Auto Motive & Placties Ltd. 280 ITR 157 256 ITR 685 (Bom) Gautom Harilal Gotecha 281 ITR 283 (Guj.) Order should be passed within 3 month from date of hearing. Shiv Sagar Veg Restaurant vs. ACIT 317 ITR 433 (Bom)

8.2

8.3

A concession of law made by an assessee or his authorized representative is not binding. CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatory (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom) ITO vs. Estate of Late K.S. Engineer (2001) 70 TTJ 161 (Mum)

9.

BINDING NATURE OF HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS Doctrine of binding precedent: The doctrine of binding precedent has merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of law besides providing assurance to an individual as to the consequence of transaction, forming part of his daily affairs. UOI vs. Raghubir sing 178 ITR 548 (SC)

9.1

As per the doctrine of precedent, all lower Courts, Tribunals and authorities exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions are bound by the decisions of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction these Courts, Tribunals & authorities functions.

CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom)

13

REVISIONS 1. 1.1 REVISION OF ORDERS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of A.O. cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue Which issue is debatable order cannot be Revised u/s. 263 Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 1.2 The expression "erroneous" refers to an order which has an error or is contrary to law. The words `prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' must mean that the orders under consideration are such as are not in accordance with the law and lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be realised - Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 1.3 The CIT cannot revise the order merely because he disagrees with view of the A.O. Similarly The Commissioner cannot revise assessment for the purpose of making roving enquiries. Such an action will be against the well accepted proposition that there must be a finality in legal proceedings CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and Indexo Int. vs. CIT 88 ITD 293 (Mum). 1.4 Commissioner cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in show-cause notice. Geo Metric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 428 (Mum) Colocraft vs. ITO 303 ITR 7 (Mum) (AT) 1.5 Doctrine of Merger - What merges with the appellate order is only that part of the order of the Assessing Officer as was the subject-matter of the appeal and no more. Immunity from the proceedings under section 263 is

14

restricted to this extent - B.S. Bajaj & Sons 222 ITR 418 (P&H), Marico Ind. Vs. ACIT 312 ITR 259 (Mum)(AT) 1.6 Commissioner has jurisdiction and powers to initiate proceedings u/s.263 in respect of issues not touched by CIT(A) in his appellate order. CIT vs. Jaykumar B. Patil 236 ITR 469 (SC) CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills 231 ITR 50 (SC) 2. REVISION OF OTHER ORDERS can file an appeal to the CIT(A). However, there may be orders passed by the Assessing Officer which are not included in specific orders in section 246. In such cases, the only machinery left with the Assessee is to invoke the revisionery jurisdiction of Commissioner under section 264 of the Act. Rectification Application In the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50, the Honble Supreme Court has at page 53 held that :

2.1 An Assessee aggrieved by the orders as specified in Section 246 of the Act

A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.

Miscellaneous Application before Appellate Tribunal

1.

Rule Rule 34A of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 which was inserted w.e.f 25th July 1991 provides for the procedure for dealing with applications under Section 254(2

2.

Hearing

15

The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Smart Pvt. Ltd. vs ITAT (1990) 182 ITR 384 took the view that although there was no specific provision for dealing with an application under Section 254(2) the rules of natural justice would require that both parties be heard before disposing of the application.

The Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Jain Trading Co. vs. UOI 282 ITR 640 (Bom) has held that the assessee should be heard prior to disposal of the application u/s. 254(2).

3.

Tribunal cannot rehear the appeal u/s. 254(2) Mahesh Bery vs. Astt. CIT 317 ITR 110 (Kol.)(AT)

16

17