{"id":13657,"date":"2020-11-02T14:28:05","date_gmt":"2020-11-02T14:28:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jaidurga-minerals-v-pcit-2020-81-itr-67-sn-ctk-trib\/"},"modified":"2021-06-30T06:25:58","modified_gmt":"2021-06-30T00:55:58","slug":"jaidurga-minerals-v-pcit-2020-81-itr-67-sn-ctk-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jaidurga-minerals-v-pcit-2020-81-itr-67-sn-ctk-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Jaidurga Minerals v. PCIT (2020) 81 ITR 67 (SN)\/ 208 TTJ 96\/ ( 2021) 200 DTR 205 (Cuttack ) (Trib)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Tribunal held that\u00a0 the assessment order was passed on March 22, 2013 and the Principal Commissioner had passed his order on March 30, 2015. Therefore, the order was within two years from the relevant date. According to the provisions of section\u00a0263(2)\u00a0there was no mention about \u201cservice\u201d of the order but only that the order shall be \u201cmade\u201d. Tribunal also held that \u00a0\u00a0it is mandatory to apply the principles of natural justice irrespective of whether there is any statutory provision. The assessee had not been afforded opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice. The Principal Commissioner, hurriedly and without affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee, had passed the order in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. He had committed a gross error in not providing any effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order. Accordingly, the revisional proceedings framed under section\u00a0263\u00a0by the Principal Commissioner were liable to be quashed.( AY.2010-11)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner &#8211; Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue \u2013 Limitation \u2013 Service of order not  relevant passing of order is relevant \u2013 Not given sufficient opportunity to give reply \u2013 Natural justice violated \u2013 Order quashed  [ S.263(2) ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3yh","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13657","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13657"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13657\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19765,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13657\/revisions\/19765"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}