Judgment :- (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J) The following are the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee for the block assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity of hearing before the determination of undisclosed income of Rs.1,40,57,515/- and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that there was no infirmity in the determination of undisclosed income based on certain loose sheets for the assessment year 1995-96 and estimation of undisclosed income for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97? (iii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer could estimate the undisclosed income in the block assessment and there was nothing wrong with the assessment determining the undisclosed income on estimation for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97 in the block assessment? 2. The assessee herein is a partnership firm carrying on business in granite debris. Consequent on the search of the premises of A.N.Dyaneswaran on 19.01.1996, the business premises of the assessee as well as the residential premises of the partner Mrs.Kumari Kanagam were also searched. The assessee filed its return on 15.09.1997, disclosing nil undisclosed income. Admittedly, the assessee was served with a notice under Section 143(2) on 27.03.1998, posting the case for finalising the assessment on 30.03.1998. 3. It is a matter of record that the assessee sought for an adjournment on 30.03.1998. However, the Assessing Officer accommodated the assessee for one day and informed that since the assessment was to be completed on 31.03.1998, the case would be posted on 31.03.1998 at 11 a.m. Since none appeared on 31.03.1998, the assessment was completed and finalised. 4. The assessment order pointed out that the copy of documents seized from the assessee at the time of search and relied on for the purpose of assessment were provided earlier and they were also again provided before the assessment. Thus, the assessment for the block period, for which notice was issued on 27.03.1998, was finalised on 31.03.1998. 5. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the assessment for the block period, for which notice was issued on 27.03.1998, was finalised on 31.03.1998. 5. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Tribunal. In paragraph 7 of the order, the Tribunal pointed out that it agreed with the assessee's contention that before reaching any conclusion, the person should be provided an effective opportunity. However, referring to the statement recorded from the assessee in the course of the enquiry proceedings consequent on the search, the Tribunal held that the assessee was confronted with the materials right from 27.05.1997 and the assessment was completed only on 31.03.1998; in the circumstances, sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee. Thus the prayer of the assessee was rejected and the assessment was dealt with on merits. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before this Court, primarily questioning the order of the Tribunal on the question of violation of the principles of natural justice, that the assessee was not granted sufficient time to counter the notice of assessment; that within three days of receipt of the notice, the assessment was finalised, solely with a view to escape the limitation provided for under Chapter XVA. 7. On going through the records, we are convinced that the assessee is bound to succeed on the aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice. Without going into the merits of assessment, we feel, this is a fit case where the order of the Tribunal needs to be set aside, to enable the assessee to produce all the material before the Assessing Officer, so that there could no longer be any complaint on the violation of the principles of natural justice. We may point out herein that when the Tribunal agreed with the assessee on the principle that before finalising the assessment, sufficient opportunity should be granted, we fail to understand, how the Tribunal could view the enquiry conducted as providing sufficient opportunity before finalising the assessment. Given the fact that for an assessment, procedure requires notice of assessment to be given to the assessee under Section 142(3), and notice, in fact, had been issued to the assessee on 27.03.1998, the assessee should have been granted sufficient time to make his objection before the Officer. 8. Given the fact that for an assessment, procedure requires notice of assessment to be given to the assessee under Section 142(3), and notice, in fact, had been issued to the assessee on 27.03.1998, the assessee should have been granted sufficient time to make his objection before the Officer. 8. We may note herein that the search was conducted on 19.01.1996 and there after wards, upto 09.02.1998, there were enquiries going on and the notice was issued only on 27.02.1998. The facts are self-evident and we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that there was no sufficient opportunity granted. In the circumstances, allowing the Tax Case Appeal, we direct the assessee to file its objections within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the objection, the Assessing Officer shall finalise the assessment within four weeks from the date of receipt of the objection from the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings without any delay on its part. Thus the assessment is set aside and the matter stands remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tax Case Appeal stands allowed. No costs.