Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.S. Rai
Judges
  • B.L. ChhibberPHOOL SINGH
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • M.S. Rai
Judges
  • B.L. ChhibberPHOOL SINGH
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Tribunal Summary: Revenue Appeal and Assessee Cross-Objection (Order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad)

Factual and Procedural Background

The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and sale of cotton seed oil. During action under section 138 at the business premises of Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. ("Hynoup") and at the residential premises of a director of Hynoup, a notebook was seized from the director's residence. The notebook contained entries recording purchases of 69,923 kgs of cotton seed oil valued at Rs. 7,73,619 by Hynoup from the assessee which were not recorded in the assessee's books. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessing Officer, "AO") treated these as unrecorded sales and, after analysing production records, electricity consumption and shortages, made an addition of Rs. 7,63,619 as suppressed sales.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition, concluding that (a) the AO's production and electricity-consumption analysis did not constitute direct or circumstantial evidence of unrecorded sales; and (b) the director's admission/entries in his private diary were not binding on the assessee without corroboration. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal; the assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the validity of the AO's order on jurisdictional and procedural grounds (approval by a Deputy Commissioner without specific prior opportunity). The Tribunal heard the appeal and cross-objection and rendered the order summarized here.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the addition of Rs. 7,63,619 as concealed profits/unrecorded sales based on entries in a notebook seized from a third party and on production/electricity analysis was justified.
  2. Whether an addition of Rs. 2,21,297 for alleged sales below market rate to sister concerns (Malguru Enterprises and Patel Traders) was sustainable.
  3. Whether disallowance of Rs. 1,530 representing unpaid sales-tax under section 43B was proper.
  4. Whether interest under section 215 should be charged in respect of the additions.
  5. Cross-objection: Whether the AO's order was vitiated for having been passed with the prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner who lacked jurisdiction or who did not give a specific opportunity to the assessee to be heard before granting approval.

Arguments of the Parties

Revenue / Departmental Representative

  • Argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate facts: the seized diary was recovered from the residential premises of a director of Hynoup and the diary entries were systematic and genuine, not fabricated.
  • Maintained that the AO's production, yield and electricity-consumption analysis gave rise to a permissible inference of unrecorded sales (shown as low yield or excess shortages) and warranted addition.
  • Suggested the Tribunal should remit the matter for further verification (remand to the AO) or restore the issue to the AO's file to establish facts more fully.
  • Relied upon Tribunal/Bench decisions (e.g., Rajdeep Sales Agency, Ahmedabad Bench B) which had upheld similar additions based on entries in the seized diary.

Assessee

  • Emphasised that the seized diary belonged to a third party (Hynoup) and was not a record of the assessee; the assessee consistently denied any sales to Hynoup except those reflected in its books.
  • Argued that the director's statement/admission could not be imputed to the assessee in absence of corroboration and proof of the assessee's participation in the transactions recorded in the diary.
  • Submitted that remanding the matter would amount to giving the Revenue a "second innings" and would be contrary to principles of natural justice and established case law cited (Gujarat High Court and Tribunal precedents).
  • Relied on prior Tribunal decision in Patel Oil Mills & Ginning Factory (identical facts) where a similar addition was deleted, and on other authorities (including Gujarat High Court decisions) supporting deletion and rejecting remand.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Admission by one person is not automatically binding on another party in absence of corroboratory material. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on this principle to hold that the director's admission/diary entries could not be foisted on the assessee without corroboration; the Tribunal accepted this view.
Commissioner v. M.K. Bros. (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) Support for the proposition that entries/admissions of one party do not establish liability of another without proof of participation. Cited by Commissioner (Appeals) to show the assessee was on stronger ground; Tribunal adopted that approach in rejecting Revenue's addition.
Patel Oil Mills & Ginning Factory, Kadi (Tribunal: Income-tax Appeal No. 803/Ahd/99) Tribunal decision deleting a similar addition where entries in a diary of Hynoup had been relied upon. The Tribunal observed the facts were identical to that earlier decision; for the reasons given there the Tribunal found no ground to sustain the present addition and followed that precedent in deleting the addition.
Rajdeep Sales Agency (Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', Income-tax Appeal No. 1837/Ahd/1990) Authority confirming an addition based on entries in a seized diary where the assessee had admitted the entries related to it. The Tribunal distinguished this precedent because in Rajdeep the assessee had admitted the entries; here the assessee denied the entries and the AO failed to produce corroboration, so Rajdeep was not applicable.
Addl. Commissioner v. Lata Mangeskar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Entries in the accounts of a third party are not conclusive proof that the assessee was the party to the transaction; such entries require corroboration. The Tribunal relied on this principle to hold that mere entries in the seized diary were insufficient to prove the assessee's unrecorded sales without corroborative evidence from the AO.
Commissioner v. Harikishan Jethamal Patel (H.J. Patel) (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Guj) Where foundational facts do not exist to raise even a remote doubt regarding genuineness of a firm/transaction, a "second innings" (remand or fresh inquiry) should not be permitted to the Revenue as it causes hardship. The Tribunal relied on this authority to refuse the Revenue's request for remand, noting the AO and Commissioner (Appeals) had already marshalled and considered the basic facts and arguments.
Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) Authority cited by the assessee to support the proposition against remand and for procedural protections (as relied upon by assessee counsel). Used by the assessee in argument to resist remand; the Tribunal found no necessity to restore the matter to the AO's file, consistent with these authorities.
Rajkumar Jain v. Asstt. Commissioner (1994) 49 TTJ (All) (TM) 558 : (1994) 208 ITR 22 (AT) (All) Tribunal authority relied upon by the assessee supporting its position on procedural fairness/remand issues. Invoked by the assessee to argue against remand; the Tribunal relied on the cumulative position of such authorities to decline the Revenue's request for remand.
Commissioner v. Chandulal Venichand (1994) 209 ITR (Guj) 257 : (1994) 73 Taxman 349 Authority on the timing of payment under section 43B vis-à-vis allowance/disallowance principles. The Tribunal noted the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,530 because the amount was paid within time before filing of return under section 139(1), and declined to interfere following this authority.
Commissioner v. Bharat Machinery & Hardware Mart (1982) 136 ITR 875 (Guj) Authority relied upon when directing not to charge interest under section 215 in certain circumstances where addition could not reasonably have been foreseen by assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed not to charge interest under section 215; the Tribunal accepted this approach and observed the assessee could not have foreseen the addition, relying on this authority.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's analysis proceeded in stages, confined to the materials and reasoning contained in the record and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order:

  1. Comparative reliance on a prior Tribunal decision: The Tribunal observed that the facts were identical to those in Patel Oil Mills & Ginning Factory (Tribunal decision) where a similar addition based on entries in a diary seized from Hynoup's director had been deleted. For the reasons given in that earlier Tribunal decision, the present addition could not be sustained.
  2. Evaluation of production/yield/electricity analysis: The AO had attempted to infer unrecorded sales from month-to-month variations in yield and electricity consumption. The Commissioner (Appeals) had gone through detailed charts and concluded that yield and electricity consumption naturally vary for legitimate reasons (e.g., different seed varieties, quality of seeds, machinery efficiency). The Tribunal independently examined the charts and agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that these variations did not have direct or circumstantial evidentiary value to prove unrecorded sales to Hynoup.
  3. Comparison of average yields: The Tribunal compared average yields in the present assessee's accounts with those in Patel Oil Mills and noted that the assessee's average yields were comparable or higher, reinforcing the view that the production data did not indicate undisclosed sales.
  4. Onus and corroboration regarding diary entries: The AO relied on entries in a diary seized from a third party (Hynoup's director). The Tribunal emphasised that when the assessee categorically denied the alleged sales, the AO bore the onus of proving, by corroborative evidence, that the diary entries represented sales by the assessee to Hynoup. Mere entries in a third party's book could not be accepted as conclusive proof; the Tribunal relied on Addl. Commissioner v. Lata Mangeskar and Kishinchand Chellaram to support this evidentiary principle.
  5. Refusal to remand: The Revenue asked for remand to the AO for further verification. The Tribunal rejected this request, holding that the basic facts had been marshalled and considered by both the AO and the Commissioner (Appeals), and that permitting a "second innings" would cause avoidable hardship. The Tribunal relied on Gujarat High Court authority (H.J. Patel / Harikishan Jethamal Patel) and related precedents to justify refusal to remand.
  6. Distinguishing contrary Tribunal authority: The Tribunal distinguished Rajdeep Sales Agency (where an addition had been confirmed) on the ground that, in Rajdeep, the assessee had admitted the entries related to it; by contrast, here the assessee consistently denied the entries and the AO produced no corroborative evidence.
  7. Other grounds: For the addition of Rs. 2,21,297 relating to alleged low-price sales to sister concerns, the Commissioner (Appeals) had followed Tribunal orders for earlier assessment years; the Tribunal declined to interfere and upheld that deletion. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the Rs. 1,530 disallowance under section 43B as it had been paid in time before filing of return, and the Tribunal followed relevant Gujarat High Court authority. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s direction not to charge interest under section 215 was accepted as consequential to deletion of the additions and was supported by Gujarat High Court authority.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and also dismissed the cross-objection filed by the assessee. Stated succinctly:

DISMISSED — The Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection is dismissed.

Direct consequences for the parties:

  • The addition of Rs. 7,63,619 as suppressed/unrecorded sales (based on entries in a third party's diary and production/electricity analysis) was not sustained and stands deleted.
  • The addition of Rs. 2,21,297 concerning alleged below-market sales to sister concerns was not sustained (Commissioner (Appeals) deletion upheld).
  • The disallowance of Rs. 1,530 under section 43B was deleted (payment was made within the relevant time before filing the return) and the deletion was upheld.
  • Directions not to charge interest under section 215 were upheld as consequential to the deletions and on the basis that the assessee could not have foreseen the additions.
  • The cross-objection asserting invalidity of the AO's order due to prior approval by the Deputy Commissioner (and alleged lack of specific opportunity) became infructuous in view of the Tribunal's findings and was dismissed.

Broader implications: The Tribunal's order follows and applies existing authorities; it does not purport to lay down a new legal principle. The decision emphasises evidentiary requirements: entries in a third party's records or admissions by a third party do not, without corroboration, constitute proof of a taxpayer's undocumented transactions; and remand should not be used to create a second opportunity for the Revenue where foundational facts have already been considered.

Show full summary ...

    Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Prabhat Oil Mills

    B.L. Chhibber, Accountant Member - The appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad.

    2. The first grievance of the Revenue is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in deleting an addition of Rs. 7,63,619 made on account of concealed profits of unrecorded sales.

    3. The assessee is a partnership firm and enjoys income from manufacturing cotton seed oil and it sale. Action under section 138 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `Hynoup') and at the residential premises of its director when one note-book was found and seized from the premises of the director of the company. In the said note book purchases of 69,923 kgs. of cotton seed oil valuing Rs. 7,73,619 made by the said company from the assessee-firm were recorded by the director of the company. The above transactions noted in the seized diary of the said company were not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee and, therefore, the Asstt. Commissioner addressed a letter dated 1st February, 1989 to the assessee-firm to explain as to why the above transactions be not treated as sales made from outside the books of accounts. Vide letter dated 25th February, 1989, the assessee- firm denied to have made any sales to the said company with the exception of those which were already recorded in its books of accounts. Thereafter, the Asstt. Commissioner analysed the consumption of raw material, production, shortages and power consumption. According to him, the electricity consumption varied from month to month and was not in consonance with the quantity of raw materials crushed; the production of cotton seed oil varied from month to month and the shortages varied from month to month. According to the Asstt. Commissioner, therefore, the said suppressed sales were nothing but shown in the form of low yield and excess shortages. He, therefore, added a sum of Rs. 7,63,619 as suppressed sales.

    4. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition on the following grounds :

    (1) The Asstt. Commissioner has merely created a suspicion by discussing elaborately monthwise production, yield of oil, oil cake and consumption of electricity to draw doubt leading to the unsubstantiated inference that the yield of oil was low in some months and, therefore, some part of the actual production could have been sold out of the books and that such sale was made to Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) went through the elaborate chart of production submitted before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as `the AO') and before him and came to the conclusion that yield of oil could not be exactly uniform in all the months inasmuch as it was dependent upon the quality of seeds and the assessee was crushing several varieties of cotton seeds and not Shankar-4 variety alone; consumption of electricity was also dependent upon various factors like efficiency of the electrical machineries, hardness and quality of the seeds. After analysing all the above factors the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the production analysis on which some reliance has been placed by the Asstt. Commissioner had no direct or circumstantial evidentiary value for the proposition that the assessee-firm would have sold some quantity of oil outside books of accounts to Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

    (2) The director of Hynoup Food & Oil Industries P. Ltd. made an admission in the course of search and that admission was only binding upon him as per the established principle of law of evidence and such admission would not be foisted upon another party if there is no other corroboratory material to support the truthfulness of the admission. In support of this the learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. Commissioner (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). The Commissioner (Appeals) also took note of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. M.K. Bros. (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) and held that the assessee was on a stronger ground, inasmuch as, it had not been proved in any way that the assessee had any participation in the impugned transaction of sale to Hynoup Food & Oil Industries P. Ltd. as recorded by the director of the said company in his private diary. The Commissioner (Appeals) further noted that the assessee-firm had made several sales to the said concern as also other associated concerns and those sales were duly recorded in the books of accounts. Hynoup Food & Oil Industries P. Ltd. was also purchasing oil for refining not only from the assessee and the associated concerns but also from outside parties on large scale. According to the Commissioner (Appeals) if Hynoup Food & Oil Industries P. Ltd. did some unaccounted purchases and noted the name of the assessee, it could not be said that the sales in fact were made from the assessee and not from other parties.

    5. Shri M.S. Rai, the learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly appreciated the facts of the case. According to him, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have noted that the diary was seized in a search at the residential premises of one of the directors of Hynoup and the entries made therein were in a very systematic and normal style. These were not by any stretch of imagination cooked up entries. According to the Departmental Representative, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer or should have restored the issue to his file to establish the facts in the correct perspective. He, therefore, prayed that to ascertain correct facts the matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The learned Departmental Representative further relied upon the decision of the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench `B', in the case of Rajdeep Sales Agency Income-tax Appeal No. 1837/Ahd/1990 to which both of us were parties and a similar addition on the basis of entries in the seized diary belonging to Hynoup was confirmed.

    6. Shri S.N. Soparkar, the learned counsel for the assessee, relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench `B' in the case of Patel Oil Mills & Ginning Factory, Kadi (Income-tax Appeal No. 803/Ahd/99) where a similar addition amounting to Rs. 6,87,068 made on identical facts was deleted. He further submitted that reference application filed by the Revenue in the above case has also been rejected by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Hynoup was a third party. The diary was seized during the course of search at the residential premises of the third party and it was not part of the record of the assessee-firm. The alleged statement of the director of Hynoup was also not part of the record of the assessee-firm and the Department was not justified in relying upon some entries/documents found at the premises of a third party. The learned counsel opposed the proposition of the Departmental Representative that the case should be set aside on the ground that all the facts were before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of which the authorities below have arrived at the definite conclusions. He submitted that under the circumstances giving second inning to the Department will be against the principles of natural justice. In support of this conclusion he relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Harikishan Jethamal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Guj), M.K. Bros. (supra), Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajkumar Jain v. Asstt. Commissioner (1994) 49 TTJ (All) (TM) 558 : (1994) 208 ITR 22 (AT) (All). The learned counsel further submitted that reliance by the Departmental Representative on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Rajdeep Sales Agency (supra) was of no assistance to the Revenue as the facts were distinguishable. In the case of Rajdeep Sales Agency (supra) the said firm had admitted that the said entries in the seized documents pertained to them, while in the present case the assessee all through denied of having any deals with Hynoup except those recorded in its books of account.

    7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. At the outset we must state that the facts here are identical with those of Patel Oil Mills & Ginning Factory, Kadi (supra) where an addition of Rs. 6,87,068 made by the Assessing Officer to the assessee's returned income on account of allegedly suppressed sale of cotton seed oil to Hynoup on the basis of entries in the seized diary at the residential premises of one of the directors of the said concern, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), was deleted by this Tribunal to which one of us (Accountant Member) was a party. For the reasons given in the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal we find no ground to sustain the addition of Rs. 7,63,619.

    8. In addition to the above, we would like to support our decision by the following observations.

    As stated above the impugned addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on two grounds, viz., erratic yield of oil cake compared monthwise and secondly on the basis of some notings made in the note book found at the residential premises of one of the directors of the firm Hynoup during the course of search. In our view, both these points have been very ably discussed and analysed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As regards the yield a detailed chart was filed before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter went through it threadbare and arrived at a conclusion that variation in the yield of monthwise and other allied factors were not indication of the fact that the assessee had made sales of oil to Hynoup. We have also gone through this chart and agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). In addition to this a similar chart for the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1986-87 in the case of Patel Oil Mills & Ginning Factory was also produced before us. It is observed therefrom that the average yield over accounting year relevant to assessment year 1986-87 in the case of Patel Oil Mills was 13.33 per cent in case of cotton seed oil and 78.31 per cent in the case of cotton seed oil cake, whereas in the case of Prabhat Oil Mills (the assessee) the average yield is 13.37 per cent in case of cotton seed oil and in the case of cotton seed oil cake 80.61 per cent which is higher than that reflected by Patel Oil Mills. This all the more justifies the arguments discussed in detail by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order before deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this count. As regards the addition on the basis of certain notings in the seized diary from the residential premises of one of the directors of the said concern, it is noted that except relying on the entries in the said seized book the Assessing Officer has not brought any corroborative material on record to prove that such sales were made to Hynoup outside the books of account. When the assessee categorically denied of having made any sales to Hynoup except those recorded in its books of accounts, the onus was on the Assessing Officer to prove with corroborative evidence that the entries in the said seized book actually represented the sales made by the assessee-firm to Hynoup. Mere entries in the accounts of a third party was not sufficient to prove that the assessee had indulged in such transactions as there was no guarantee that the entries were genuine. In this we are supported by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Addl. Commissioner v. Lata Mangeskar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom).

    9. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the Departmental Representative that the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the facts. We find that all the basic facts were before the Assessing Officer and he appreciated the same and arrived at a definite conclusion. In this we are supported by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of H.J. Patel (supra) where it has been held that where foundational facts do not exist raising even a remote doubt regarding the genuineness of the firm and/or the transaction in question, a second innings should not be permitted to the Revenue as it would result in avoidable hardship and harassment to hundreds of assessees. In the present case the facts have been thoroughly marshelled by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) and after hearing detailed arguments from both the sides, put before us we do not feel any necessity to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

    10. Coming to the arguments of the Departmental Representative that the ground is covered against the assessee by our order in the case of Rajdeep Sales Agency (supra). We find that the facts here are distinguishable. In the case of Rajdeep Sales Agency (supra) the assessee-firm admitted that the said entries in the seized documents represented payment for the purchases made by the assessee-firm. In other words the assessee owned up such entries and prayed that only an addition for the peak should be made. In the case before us the assessee from the very beginning categorically denied that the entries in the seized diary pertained to it and the Assessing Officer failed to prove by corroborative evidence that such entries pertained to the assessee. The facts being distinguishable we reject the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative. In the light of above discussions we uphold the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismiss this ground.

    11. Ground No. 2 pertains to addition of Rs. 2,21,297 in respect of alleged sales at lower than the market rate to the sister concerns Malguru Enterprises and Patel Traders. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the addition following his orders relating to assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.

    12. The learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the order of the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal Nos. 566 and 5669/Ahd/1089 relating to assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 in the case of the assessee where the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were upheld. Respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal we decline to interfere and uphold the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). This ground also fails and is dismissed.

    13. Ground No. 3 is against the disallowance of Rs. 1,530 representing unpaid sales-tax liability of the last quarter under section 43B. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the amount was paid within time in the next year before due date for filing of return under section 139 (1) and, therefore, deleted the disallowance. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is in consonance with the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Chandulal Venichand (1994) 209 ITR (Guj) 257 : (1994) 73 Taxman 349 and we decline to interfere. This ground also fails and is dismissed.

    14. The last grievance of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in directing not to charge interest under section 215 of the Act. This ground is consequential in nature and does not survive after taking into consideration the relief given by the Commissioner (Appeals). Even otherwise the assessee could not have foreseen, the addition to its income and accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in giving his directions following the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Bharat Machinery & Hardware Mart (1982) 136 ITR 875 (Guj).

    15. Now, we take up cross-objection filed by the assessee which reads as under :

    "In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of appellant the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in not considering the ground that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law in so far as such order was passed with the previous approval of the Dy. Commissioner who had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and or who had not given a specific opportunity to the appellant of being heard before approving the order which is prejudicial to the appellant it, therefore, deserved to be cancelled. The appellant, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and may be cancelled."

    In view of our findings in the Revenue's appeal above the cross- objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

    16. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Prabhat Oil Mills
    (Apr 3, 1995)