Per A.D. Jain, Judicial Member: These are department's appeals for assessment year 2004-05. I.T.A. No. 263 (Asr.)/2007 is against order dated 13-3-2007 passed by learned CIT(A), Jammu with Headquarters at Amritsar, under section 250(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas I.T.A. No. 291(Asr.)/2007 has been filed against order dated 29-3-2007 passed by learned CIT(A), Jammu with Headquarters at Amritsar, under section 154 of Act, rectifying his aforesaid earlier order. 2. following grounds of appeal have been taken in I.T.A. No. 263(Asr.)/2007:-1.That ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that Excise Refund received by assessee amounting to Rs. 11,33,446 is not revenue receipt but merely debt from Central Excise Department. 2.That ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that Excise Refund received by assessee amounting to Rs. 11,33,446 is not income at all and that question of it being 'derived from' industrial undertaking or not, does not arise. 3.That ld. CIT(A) is not justified in making observation that excise charged by assessee from its customers and forming part of total turnover is 'derived from' industrial undertaking. 4.That ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting addition of Rs. 11,33,446 made by Assessing Officer to total income of assessee. 5.That order of ld. CIT(A) is unjust arbitrary and contrary to facts and bad in law. 6.That ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 is not applicable in case of assessee.' 3. following grounds of appeal have been taken in I.T.A. No. 291(Asr.)/2007:- 1. That on facts and in circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A), Jammu Hqrs. Amritsar has erred in not accepting contention raised in application under section 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That on facts and circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A), Jammu Hqrs. Amritsar has erred in holding that Refund of Excise Duty received by assessee is not Income of assessee but merely recovery of debt. 3. That on facts and circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A), Jammu Hqrs. Amritsar has erred in not appreciating fact that assessee had himself reflected Refund of Excise Duty on Income in Profit and Loss Account enclosed with return of income. 4. That on facts and circumstances of case, ld. CIT(A), Jammu Hqrs. Amritsar has also erred in rejecting application filed by Assessing Officer and ignored various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts.' 4. In I.T.A. No. 263 (Asr.)/2007, following additional grounds have been raised:- (i) That ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not affording opportunity of being heard to Assessing Officer by not issuing I.T.N.S. 51 to Assessing Officer before fixing case for hearing, thus passing order in violation of provisions of section 250(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 and principles of natural justice thereby rendering order void ab initio. (ii) That ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not issuing notice to Assessing Officer regarding date, time and place of fixation of case of hearing under section 250(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961.' 5. Apropos admission of additional grounds raised in I.T.A. No. 263 (Asr.)/2007, contention of learned D.R. is that these grounds are legal, going to very root of matter, and not requiring any fresh facts to be gone into. learned counsel for assessee has not been able to controvert above contention of learned D.R. 6. We find that additional grounds raised by department are only legal grounds. They do go to root of matter since they concern issue of opportunity of hearing to department before learned CIT(A). As such, these additional grounds of appeal are hereby admitted. 7. Apropos additional grounds of appeal taken, it is contention, on merits of department, as supported by affidavit dated 31-8-2007, filed by I.T.O., Ward 1(1), Jammu, that no opportunity of hearing was granted to Assessing Officer by learned CIT(A) before disposing of matter; that Assessing Officer had not received any intimation in this regard, in I.T.N.S. 51 from CIT(A), Jammu in respect of appeal filed for assessment year 2004-05; that as per record of office of Assessing Officer, he had also not received any copy of appeal memo filed by assessee regarding said appeal; that he had also not received any notice in Form No. I.T.N.S. 52 from office of CIT(A), Jammu, in respect of said appeal; and that thus, Assessing Officer had been right right to be heard at hearing of appeal before learned CIT(A) in violation of provisions of section 250(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. learned counsel for assessee, on other hand, has opposed assertion of department regarding non-affording of opportunity to Assessing Officer by learned CIT(A) at time of hearing of appeal. learned counsel for assessee has submitted that I.T.N.S. 37 dated 11-12- 2006 (copy filed on record) was served on assessee through Assessing Officer himself. According to learned counsel for assessee, this clearly shows that learned CIT(A) got I.T.N.S. 37 served on assessee through Assessing Officer and that thus, it is incorrect to say that Assessing Officer was not aware of pendency of appeal before learned CIT(A). In support of his contention, learned counsel for assessee has sought to place reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow AIR 1976 SC 2428, wherein, it has been held, inter alia, that where there is allegation of bias in respect of member of administrative Board or body, what has to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. Reliance has also been placed on Third Member decision of Delhi Bench of has also been placed on Third Member decision of Delhi Bench of Tribunal in case of Dy. CIT v. Dewan Tyres Ltd. [1996] 59 ITD 9, holding that notice under section 250(2) of Act having been served on Assessing Officer, there was no violation of section 250(2) when Assessing Officer was neither present before CIT(A) in person, nor through his representative. 9. We have heard parties and have considered additional grounds raised by department. Section 250(1) of Act provides that CIT(A) shall affix date and place for hearing of appeal and shall give notice of same to appellant and to Assessing Officer against whose order appeal is preferred. Form of such notice is not prescribed in Act. Undisputedly, I.T.N.S. 51 is Form adopted by department for issuing notice under section 250 of Act to Assessing Officer. copy of I.T.N.S. 51 has been placed before us by learned D.R. department has categorically stated that no I.T.N.S. 51 in this case was served on Assessing Officer by office of learned CIT(A). This assertion has been substantiated by affidavit of Assessing Officer. contention of assessee in this regard is that issuance and service of I.T.N.S. 51 is internal matter of department and it does not concern assessee. It has also been contended that I.T.N.S. 37, which is Form of notice to be issued and served on assessee by office of learned CIT(A) with regard to opportunity of hearing, was got served by office of learned CIT(A)through Assessing Officer on assessee and that, therefore, Assessing Officer definitely was aware of pendency of appeal before learned CIT(A). 10. first contention of assessee, in our considered opinion, does not carry any force. As such, section 250 does not prescribe any Form of notice t o Assessing Officer. I.T.N.S. 51 is Form undisputedly prepared by department in pursuance to provisions of section 250(1) of Act. It is this Form which provides notice to Assessing Officer with regard to pendency of appeal before learned CIT(A). I.T.N.S. 37 is Form which is at par with I.T.N.S. 51. I.T.N.S. 37 provides notice to assessee, as does I.T.N.S. 51 to Assessing Officer. Therefore, contention that these Forms are internal to department, does not carry case of assessee any further. 11. specific requirement of section 250(1) is that learned CIT(A) shall fix date and place for hearing of appeal and shall give notice of same to assessee as well as to Assessing Officer. This requirement is entirely in keeping with principle of natural justice of 'audi partem alterm', meaning that other party should be heard. Hearing, in law of land means effective hearing. It is fundamental principle of natural justice that no Judge or no person upon whom judicial powers are conferred can come to judicial or quasi-judicial decision without hearing all parties who are to be affected by his decision and he must always assume that Legislature who has know-ledge of judicial principles and rules of natural justice impliedly, if not expressly, incorporate those rules whenever they confer judicial functions upon person or authority. If these rules of natural justice are to be excluded, then express provision to that effect must be found in statute itself, as held in Tuljansa Janardhansa Pawar v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 648 (Bom.). Income-tax Act does not contain any provision to this effect. 12. provisions contained in section 250 of Act embody fundamental rules of natural justice so as to ensure that appellate authority acts honestly, in good faith, with sense of responsibility and in consonance with its own rules. When duty of deciding appeal is imposed, those whose duty it is to decide it must act judicially. They must deal with question referred to them without bias, and they must give to each of parties opportunity of adequately presenting case made. In this case, department has been able to successfully show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to AssessingOfficer before deciding appeals. Therefore, grievance of department in this regard is justified. G.Sarana's case (supra) has no application to present case. There is no question of bias herein. present is case of non-affording of opportunity of hearing by judicial authority to one of parties, which cannot be sustained. 13. Likewise, Dewan Tyres Ltd.'s case (supra) is also not applicable. In that case, notice under section250(2) of Act was served on Assessing Officer and so there was held to be no violation of said provision. In present case, however, case of department is that notice of hearing of appeal was not given by learned CIT(A) to Assessing Officer. 14. In view of above, finding force in additional grounds of appeal raised by department, we hereby accept same. 15. Since additional grounds raised by department have been accepted, grounds on merits are not required to be gone into. 16. In view of our above discussion, matter in appeal is remitted to file of learned CIT(A) to be decided afresh within two months from date of receipt of this order, in accordance with law, on affording due opportunity to Assessing Officer. Thus, I.T.A. No. 263 (Asr.)/2007 is entitled to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. 17. Since subject-matter of appeal in I.T.A. No. 263 (Asr.)/2007 has been remitted to file of learned CIT(A) to be decided afresh as required above, in accordance with law on affording due opportunity of hearing to Assessing Officer, order passed by learned CIT(A) in I.T.A. No. 291 (Asr.)/2007 becomes infructuous, rendering appeal itself to be infructuous. Ordered accordingly. 18. In result, I.T.A. No. 263 (Asr.)/2007 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes, whereas, I.T.A. No. 291 (Asr.)/2007 is dismissed as infructuous. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. ACE ENGG. CO.