Assessee filed an application under section 264 and notice under section 264 was issued to assessee on 6-3-2021, setting a hearing for 10-3-2021. Assessee could not attend hearing and did not request an adjournment. No order was passed on 10-3-2021, but another hearing was scheduled for 16-3-2021, where revision application was rejected. Subsequently, Pr. Commissioner passed an order dated 23-3-2021. On writ the Court observed that date of order was 23-3-2021 and not 16-3-2021 and though matter was fixed for 10-3-2021 but no order was passed by officer concerned on that date and in fact, matter was posted for a subsequent date wherein no notice was given to assessee.As revision application was filed by assessee under section 264, officer concerned ought to have granted a further opportunity to assessee to appear, since matter was not heard out and decided on that date. Accordingly the order dated 23-3-2021 is quashed and set-aside.
Ritu Mittal (Smt.) v. ITO (2024) 298 Taxman 112 (All.)(HC)
S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Principle of natural justice-Application was rejected-Matter was not heard and disposed on the date hearing-Matter is set aside to decide the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. [Art. 226]