HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. Vs. D.A. SHELDEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE , returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) MUMBAI determining the transfer price and directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 3,62,29,41,000 in the income of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner against that order, which is impugned before us is that the show -cause notice but in the reply it was stated that due to short time that has been allowed for filing reply, the petitioner could not place all the documents on which the petitioner wish to rely upon and could not submit his complete reply. It was also stated that considering the nature of the enquiry and order that was proposed to be made, the petitioner should be given personal hearing. submissions were filed and the order sheet states that the matter was discussed with the representative of the petitioner. However, it is common ground that personal hearing was not given and the petitioner was also not permitted to file additional reply and produce additional documents.

(3.) AFTER hearing the matter on last occasion, we had asked the learned counsel for the respondents to take instructions whether in this view of the matter, the matter can be reheard by the authority. The learned counsel for the respondents, after taking instructions stated that the respondents is willing to give personal hearing to the petitioner and will pass fresh order after granting personal hearing. The learned counsel further stated that according to the respondents, it is not necessary to give petitioner an opportunity to file additional reply and change his stand and file additional documents.