PEARL AGENCIES Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the parties the aforesaid appeals were decided by a Bench of this Tribunals vide order dated 10 -1 -89. The assessed then moved an application dated 22 -2 -1989 purporting to be u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act). The same was dismissed by a Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 1 -3 -1989 by a reasoned order, though without giving the assessed an opportunity of personal/oral hearing. The Bench after very careful examination of the order and the record did not find any apparent mistake in its order.

(2.) THE assessed has now moved another application dated 20 -3 -1989 praying that the aforesaid order dated 1 -3 -1989 be recalled because it is an order non est in law, as it was passed without giving an opportunity of bearing to the assessed petitioner. For the contention that the order is non est for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner has, in the petition, stated that Amrit Narain, In re [C. W. No. 1077 of 1988] the Honorable Delhi High Court has passes the following order : "By this petition the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 9th November, 1987 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It appears that this order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order is thus vocative of principles of natural justice. In our view the order is liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the order and direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the application made by the petitioner afresh after giving him an opportunity of being heard. There is no order as to costs."

(3.) THE question, Therefore, before us is whether the order passed by us deciding the miscellaneous application of the assessed under sec. 254(2) of the Act without giving it an opportunity of personal hearing is non est in law. According to the assessed, this Tribunal has violated the principles of natural justice in not giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessed. The question, Therefore, is what the principles of natural justice require in the particular case before us and whether the Tribunal has violated any such principle.