DR. PRANNOY ROY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing counsel and Mr. Sahni, Advocate appear and state that the petitions can be disposed of at this stage. These two petitions challenge the validity of an order made by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is contended that the Tribunal, in a very unusual manner, entertained additional documents which were not part of the record. Learned counsel refers to the order sheets for 22.11.2017, 24.01.2018 and 13.02.2018 and contends firstly that the early hearing of the appeal for AY 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 was made without appropriate notice. It is contended besides that the question of producing additional documents was not a matter in issue as the order dated 22.11.2017 clearly reflects. It is further submitted that the ITAT's opinion that an order directing early hearing is merely administrative is contrary to its own ruling in Olympia Paper & Stationery Stores v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 63 ITD 148 . Learned counsel also emphasized that for passing any formal order under Rule 29 permitting the additional documents to be brought on record, the Tribunal could not proceed so, as it did.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Revenue contests some of the factual submissions and argues that the materials on record clearly reveal that the assessee's counsel had agreed to produce the additional documents. He further justifies this course by stressing that a reference to these documents was found in the other documents which were part of the record. Learned counsel also submitted that the ITAT cannot be faulted for fixing an early date of hearing having regard to the circumstance that the appeal for AY 2009-2010 was at an advanced stage of hearing. 3. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In view of the final order that is proposed, a detailed discussion of the facts is necessary. The Tribunal's observation in the impugned order made in the course of the rectification application i.e. that an order, allowing an application for early hearing, is merely administrative, is clearly incorrect. In this regard, the Tribunal's view in Olympia Paper and Stationery Stores (Supra) is as follows:-