Allahabad H.C : Whether or not the AAC erroneously rejected the medical certificate and thereafter re-decide the case according to law.

BY THE COURT :

This is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner who was assessed under the IT Act, 1961.

2. The assessment order was made ex parte and that was challenged before the AAC on the ground that the ITO was not justified in having made an ex parte assessment, inasmuch as the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from having appeared before him. In support of this contention, the petitioner also produced a medical certificate before the AAC, who disbelieved the same.

The petitioner filed a revision before the CIT under s. 264 of the Act of 1961, raising one of the grounds that the AAC was in error in having rejected the medical certificate. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no finding whatsoever has been recorded by the CIT on this ground and that had the CIT given a finding on this ground and agreed with the petitioner, then there would have been no need for the CIT to enter into the merits of the case. Upon perusal of the order of the CIT (annexure ” 4 ” to the writ petition), it appears to be correct that the CIT has omitted to record any finding on the ground that the AAC erroneously rejected the medical certificate. It is, therefore, clear from the facts of the case that the CIT failed to record a finding on a vital point and, therefore, the matter deserves to be sent back to the CIT.

The petition is, therefore, allowed. The Commissioner’s order dated August 12, 1986 (annexure ” 4 ” to the writ petition), is quashed and the case is sent back to the CIT with a direction that he will record a finding on the vital ground whether or not the AAC erroneously rejected the medical certificate and thereafter re-decide the case according to law. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

[Citation : 171 ITR 522]