Case Law Details
Case Name : Raman Kumar Kapoor Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : I.T.A .No.-3261/Del/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/01/2014
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Delhi
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
CA Prarthana Jalan
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of Raman Kumar Kapoor v/s ACIT has held that Maxim of “audi alteram partem”cannot be sacrificed at the altar of the administrative convenience or celebrity. In the case assessment was do
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
The appellant and assessee are running a scheme of “let the appeal be pending and wait for the next AO and try to convince him – if he is not convinced, lets wait and let him be replaced – now try to convince the replaced AO, if not – repeat”. And convince i mean “by any means possible”. What a jack
I agree with Mr.Bajpai; it is evident that assessee did not utilise the opportunity granted.
Agree with Sri Bajpaiji. The principle requires granting of opportunity,and not necessarily hearing the party.
I don’t think that the decision of the ITAT is correct.As recorded in the order of CIT(A), the appellant did not appear for hearing;in fact, he didn’t also appear before the ITAT and the appeal was decided in his favour by relying upon the well known Supreme Court’s judgment in Kirpaik’s case, which is an authority on principles of natural justice.
All that the principles of natural justice require is to give “opportunity of hearing” and if the opportunity is not availed of, it would be a clear case of abuse of the process of the court.The conduct of the appellant is borne out by his repeatedly not availing the opportunity provided to him both by CIT(A) as also ITAT.
N.K.Bajpai,
Retired Member, CESTAT, New Delhi
Advocate, Supreme Court of India