- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.293 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s appearances, Court’s orders order or directions ----------------------------------------------------- ¦ Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. ¦ Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. ¦ ¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ¦ J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. ¦ DATED: 7TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The tribunal has held that the order passed in revision is invalid because it travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice. It is common ground that the revisional order is based on grounds, some of which were not found in the show cause notice. The tribunal, therefore, has said that the order is in breach of principles of natural justice. Requirement of show cause notice is incorporated in - 2 - law, so that a person to whom the show cause notice is given gets an opportunity to submit his point of view in relation to the grounds which are to be considered for making the order pursuant to the show cause notice. If some grounds which are not included in the show cause notice are made basis of the order, then the assessee will not get an opportunity to submit his point of view in relation to those grounds and therefore taking those grounds into consideration will violate the principles of natural justice. In view of the admitted position that some additional grounds which were not found in the show cause notice were made the basis of the order of the revisional authority, in our opinion, the tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed in revision. So far as second question of law is concerned, it reads as under:- "Whether the Hon’ble ITAT is right in holding that the AO made sufficient enquiries about the - 3 - assessee’s claim of expenses made in the re-revised return of income without considering that further examinations to arrive at a definite finding was required after statement in assessee’s letter dated 13-2-2004 that the expenses were for security purposes and that payments have been made out of cash balance available etc.? Whether the AO had made sufficient inquiry or not cannot be the question of law. It is necessarily a question of fact. Appeal, therefore, cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)