TMI Blog1977 (7) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that the appellant has claimed deduction in respect of purchases made buy the following 8 registered dealers during the year 1973-74. 1. 1. Trinath Bhandar Bhairpur, CU II.3472 (Prop. Laxmidhar Sahoo, son of Ramchandra Sahoo of vill : Bhairpur, P.S. Salepur) 2. 2. Shankar Store Maharapada, P.U. I.521 (Prop. Shri Maheswar Parida son of Late Mohan Parida of vill. Telgadapatna doing business at Naharpada, PS. Brahmagiri, dist. Puri) 3. 3. M.s Jharondar Das, Badasankha, <!--?xml:namespace prefix = st2 ?-->PUI. 1727 (He is of village Remachandrapur P.O. Bhingarapur, P.S. Balianta of district Puri and was carrying his business at Badasankha but he shifted his place of business to Atharanalapatna, P.O. Govindpur, dist. Puri w.e.f. 27th Nov.,.1973 and got his registration certificate amended w.e.f. 27th Nov., 1973) 4. 4. Binapani Store, Mahidharpada, CU. II. 3514 (Prop: Harihar Mohanty, son of Krushna Chandra Mohanty of vill. Mahidharpada, Cuttack. 5. 5. Balajee Traders, Ranihat, CU. I.E. 1891 (Proper: Sudhir Chandra Parida son of Duryodhan Parida of vill. Biridi, district Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no further duty lies on the assessee to produce the man and certainly not his books of accounts. "Regarding category no. (b), that is the persons who are carrying business and have denied to made purchase, it was urged that, unless a copy of the statement given by the dealer denying the purchase is given, the assessee is not in a position to furnish any reply on the point. He has to ascertain as to under what circumstances, such a statement has been given by the said dealer." With these assertions; he expressed his inability to produce the dealer who granted registration certificate. After this, the AO issued summons to those dealers by post and as service could not be effected through post, the AO in his letter No. 3722 dt. 5th Aug., 1975 sent 14 summons to be served on the persons those who granted declarations in pursuance of purchases made from the assessee. The 14 dealers for whom summons were issued are as follows: 1. Madhabananda Das, Mansinghpatna, 2. Kailash Chandra Patra, Malgodown, 3. Alok Pratishthan, Badambadi, 4. Kalpana Store, Brahmagiri 5. Khatrabasi Nayak, Puri 6. Nilakantha Store, Machagaon, 7. Balaji Trades, Ranihat 8. Jharendra Das, Badasan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration certificate number CU. II. 3423. 3. Sri Banshidar Mohapatra, Prop. of Alok Pratishan, Badampadi having registration certificate number CU. I.W. 1386. 4. Sri Harihar Mohanty, Prop. of Binapani Store, Mahidharapada registration number CU. II. 3414. In consideration all these evidence placed by the assessee over and above the declaration forms granted by the purchasers, the learned AO, disallowed the following claim of the assessee in respect of the year 1971-72. Sl. No. Name of the dealer R.C. No. Amount disallowed . . . Rs. 1. Alok Pratishthan CU.I.W. 1386 5,72,920.59 2. Alaka Bhandar CU. II. 3423 6,55,613.78 3. Ganesh Store CU.II. 657 5,44,973.29 4. Bayalish Mouza Store CU.II(S) 201 15,987.82 5. Anam Charan Mohanty CU.II(J) 34 31,884.05 6. Madhabananda Das CU.I.W. 445 37,079.06 7. Nilamani Rout CU.I.W. 836 47,500.50 . . Total 19,05,959.03 It may be pointed out that the AO in respect of this year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Store, Brahmagiri 39,293.15 . B.F. 67,07,807.82 9. Majid Store 25,000.00 . . 67,32,807.82 P.S.: This figure (Rs. 25,000) do not relate to disallowance on account of sales to registered dealers, but it relates to estimate of sales made to Majid Stores on 1st April, 1974. After recording these findings, the AO, imposed tax and penalty in the three years as follows: Year Tax Penalty Total 1971-72 Rs. 77,428.75 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 82,428.75 1972-73 Rs. 1,97,492.43 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 2,02,492.43 1973-74 Rs. 2,63,535.70 Rs. Rs. 2,63,535.70 Total Rs. 5,38,456.88 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 5,48,456.88 4. Being aggrieved by these orders of assessment, the appellant filed three appeals before the first appellate Court. The learned appellant Court after referring to the case reported in 16 STC page 25 and 25 STC page 83, observed follows: "In the instant case, the appellant produced declaration from different registered dealers which in the opinion of the learned AO either did not exist or g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase and sale account so as to know if their accounts revealed the extent of purchase made from the appellant on the strength of giving declaration. But surprisingly enough, all the summons came back with the endorsement of the Postal Department that no such person is available or no such person is known to exist in the address given. The appellant however filed the affidavits. To verify the correctness of the affidavit, the learned AO caused enquiry from the local Sarpanch regarding the existence of a purchasing dealer namely Jharendra Das who reported that such person did not exist all in the locality. Similarly there were other dealers who claimed not to have purchased goods from the appellant. The AO also asked the appellant to produce the purchasing dealer by causing service of summons on them. The said action is justified as it is the duty of the appellant to prove that the declarations on which he relied are genuine ones. Since the said direction has been given by the Hon'ble Court in another case, the direction to serve the summons on the purchasing dealers and cause their production before the AO was perfectly within the competency of the learned AO. Enquiry conducted s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted sale in favour of persons who have been duly registered under the law and his purchasers were duly authorised under the registration certificate to make those purchases. After that is done, it is the Department to provie that no purchases have been made and that the purchasers were fictitious. In other words the onus is heavy on the Department to prove that the registration of those purchasing dealers have not bee effected according to law and for this the Department has to produce evidence and make it known to the assessee for rebuttal. It is only thereafter, if the AO come to a finding that the registration of those dealers have not been made in accordance with law, it is then only the claims for deduction can be rejected. But that has not been done in the instant case. In that view, the conclusion drawn by the forums below is wrong. It was thirdly urged that the onus has been placed on the assessee wrongly and the forums below have insisted that as the appellant has effected sale, he must prove those sales. That approach is completely wrong in view of the provisions of the Orissa ST Act specially when the Department has not placed materials to show that registration certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto possession of any new information and the order of reassessment could not be framed under s. 11A of the Act as stood on the material time". This objection was overruled by his Lordship with the following observation: "I may add that the assessments are usually framed by the assessing authorities in a hurried manner. At that stage, the gross turnover of a dealer and the certificates given by the purchasing dealer in form ST XXII are usually examined and the assessments framed with suspicion for, otherwise lot of public time would be wasted and even the assessee would be made to suffer great inconvenience. If at some subsequent stage it comes to the notice of the assessing authority that the 'C' forms had either not been furnished by a registered dealer or the same had been furnished by a dealer whose registration certificate stood cancelled in accordance with law at a time earlier than the one when he signed the declaration from it could not be said that the receipt of this information would not entitle the assessing authority to frame the reassessment in order to prevent loss of Revenue. The information entitling the assessing authority to frame reassessment include informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a vs. State of Orissa (17 STC 271). This reported case arose out of 8 appeals decided by the ST Tribunal. Before the ST Tribunal, four appals decided by one appellate Court namely Sri L.C. Sahu and another, 4 appeals of the said assessee decided by another appellate officer Shri S.K. Das, were heard together. The first appellate authority namely Sri Das, in the four appeals held that "so long as the purchasing dealer held a valid certificate of registration which was seen by the assessee, the latter was entitled to the deduction and it was not his look out further to examine and find out if the purchasing dealer was really a genuine person or a bogus person or else whether he was a "dealer at all" and allowed the deductions. In the other 4 first appeals, the appellant officer Sri Sahu held that "certificate of registration obtained by the purchasing dealers were obtained fraudulently either in the names of fictitious persons or persons who had no business at all." This finding of Sri Sahu that certificates were obtained fraudulently and that they were obtained in the name of fictitious person, was not challenged before the Tribunal and on this disputed fact, the Tribunal held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat certificate issued is fraudulent. Regarding this their Lordships observed at page 277 as follows: "Here, it has been found as a fact that persons who had no business at all succeeded in obtaining certificates of registration from the ST Authorities and hence the grant of certificates of registration to them should be held to have been made by mistake. The ST Authorise had no jurisdiction to grant such certificates to fictitious persons or to persons who had no business. Hence, though these persons may technically be said to be holders of registration certificates, nevertheless, in the eye of law, they cannot be held to be registered dealers because they have no been "validly" registered under the provisions of the Act and any mistake committed by the subordinate officers of the ST Department, either due to negligence or due to collusion, cannot, on general principles, operate as estoppel against Government. XXX XXX XXX But Government cannot be estopped from rebutting that presumption and proving by other evidence that the registration was not effected in accordance with law." It has been further held in the said case that: " initially the burden of proving the decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to adduce evidence to show that the registration that was allowed in favour of the purchaser was fraudulently made and it was not in accordance with law and the said evidence must be supplied to the assessee and opportunity must be given to rebut the same. It is only thereafter, his claim can be rejected, if the finding is that the registration was not in accordance with law. It must be borne in mind that, law never requires for the assessee to prove that the purchasing dealer really carried on business. The question has to be only decided if the registration was made in accordance with law or otherwise, If the answer is in the negative, that is, if the registration was visited by fraud and is not in accordance with law, then only the claim can only be disallowed. It is this which must be kept in view while deciding the claim of deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of sales to registered dealers. 10. The next cause so far as Orissa ST Act is concerned, is Ramprasad Tormal vs. State of Orissa (25 STC 38). The circumstances under which reference was made to the Hon'ble Court will be found from the following observations of their Lordships appearing at page 42 of the report. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s persons and there is no valid registration in their favour, then the onus shifts to the assessee to prove that the declarations produced by him are genuine. This finding of the Hon'ble Court will not apply where it is not proved by the Department that purchasing dealers are fictitious persons or that there is evidence to show from the purchasing dealer that they have not effected purchases or that the registration granted their favour have not been granted in accordance with law. 11. The another aspect of law convassed, need also be taken into consideration. The forums below remarked that all the deductions claimed by the appellant are paid in cash which raises sufficient amount of doubt. But this matter came up for discussion before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Durga Sree Stores vs. Board of Revenue. West Bengal 15 STC 186 and it has been held in that case as follows: "A look to the report will go to show that the AO disallowed the deduction on account of the following reasons: (a) There is suspicion about the genuineness and integrity of the transactions which were comparatively heavy. (b) The purchasing dealers are said to have left business. (c) Registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly cancelled and payment was made in cash and challan number was not written in the declaration form. But the High court observed in the following manner which is to be found at page 300 of the report. "The law does not require that in order to claim deduction under s. 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, sales cannot be made on cash payment. The mere fact that the transactions were in cash may give rise to suspicion in the mind of the assessing authorities, but suspicion cannot be treated as evidence on which it can be concluded that the purchasing dealer was not in existence during the relevant time or that that no sales in fact were effected. XXX XXX XXX "It is, however, open to the taxing authorities on proper and cogent materials to hold that the transaction was a collusive one or that no sale in fact took place. In the present case, however no such attempt has been made by respondent No. 1 (CTC) to impeach the transaction as not genuine on any such legal evidence." The above will go to show that even if payments are made in cash, even if the assessee could not show the existence of the purchaser, even if he does not adduce any evidence how the goods moved, then his deduction canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the declarations functioned by the assessee were not true declarations as required under rules for claiming deduction. The Tribunal found against the assessee as the assessee had not challenged the finding of the AO that the firm in question are bogus and fictitious and it failed to exercise deligence and adequate precaution to satisfy itself that the transactions were with genuine dealers. It is against the said decision, the following question was referred to the Hon'ble High Court. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the deduction of Rs. 2,75,317.50 and Rs. 1,06,306.61 from the gross turnover of the dealer for the two years 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively on account of sales to various registered dealers ?" Their Lordships accepted the claim on the following finding: "(i) The competent Departmental authorities had granted registration certificate under the Act 1947 and 1959. (ii) Suffice is to say that persons with signed applications have got to approach the authorities concerned granting them certificates. A duty is cast upon the authorities at that stage to find out whether the application for such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The only thing that is necessary for him to see is that the certificate produced is genuine. He is under no obligation to embark upon an enquiry about the genuineness of the dealer, as no such duty is case upon him in law. 16. But if it is established by the Department that the certificate produced by the purchasing dealer is forged or fabricated, (ii) if it was found that the dealer who produced the declaration claiming deduction had a hand in obtaining the registration certificate in the name of fictitious person, (iii) or had a hand in getting forged and fabricated certificate produced before it, then only his deduction can be disallowed. 17. This being the position of law, now I shall proceed to analyse the matters in respect of three years of assessment. I shall first take up the subject-matter of second appeal No. 186 of 1977-78 which relates to the asst. yr. 1971-72. I have already mentioned in detail the persons who are the purchasers from the appellant and they are as follows. 1. Alok Pratisthan, Badambadi, CU.I.W. 1386 2. Alaka Bhandar, Chhanchapada, Prop: S.N. Mohanty 3. Ganesh Store, CU. II(S) 657 4. Bayalish Mouza Store, CU. II(S) 201 5. Anam Charan Mohan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish a copy and escaped by saying that the substance was supplied to the assessee. That is not the compliance of the assessee's request. Substance was there in the notice. But inspite of that he demanded that copies should be given to him. But that was not done. In like manner in the case of Anam Charan Mohanty the copies were not supplied to the assessee. Hence, the decision taken by the AO in the matter of disallowing claim of sales made to Anam Charan Mohanty, is not in accordance with law. Hence, this matter should go back to the AO and he should take steps to supply copy of the statement made by Anam Charan Mohanty on 7th Oct., 1972 before the AO and details of the enquires made by the Intelligence Wing. Further, in case the assessee demands for production of those persons connected with those enquiry, they should be summoned and be subjected to cross examination if demanded by the assessee. It is only thereafter, the claim of deduction be disposed of. (iii) I shall then take up the case of Alok Pratisthan. Here, the appellant has claimed deduction amounting to Rs. 5,72,920.53. The AO looked to these declarations with suspicion as they were of cash transactions. I have alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty of the assessee to produce his purchaser. But I am afraid that, that is not the position of law. Law casts no duty on the assessee to produce the purchaser and to prove that his purchaser carried on business at the premises where he is stated to be carrying on business in his registration certificate. Hence, considering all the evidence on record, I hold that the deductions claimed by the assessee in respect of Alok Pratisthan to the tune of Rs. 5,72,720.53 must be allowed. (iv) The fourth case is with reference to Alaka Bhahdar. This business Alaka Bhandar was being carried on by one Satyanarayana Mohanty, son of Ananda Chandra Mohanty of village Chanchapada, P.O. Damodarpur, P.S. Keshor Nagar, Dist. Cuttack. The assessee has not only filed the declarations granted by S.N. Mohanty, but he also filed an affidavit sworn by S.N. Mohanty on 28th Dec., 1974 wherein the aforesaid S.N. Mohanty has asserted that he has effected purchases from Bijaya Co. From this it will be clear that the assessee has proved that his purchaser was validly registered dealer and his registration was effective on the date of the alleged purchase. Against that, the AO has recorded the following. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Mouza Store has been validly registered as CU. II (S) and having its registration number 201. From this it must be taken that there is no challenge or there is no material to come to the finding that Bayalish Mouza store was not a registered dealer. There is also no finding that he effected purchase of goods for which he was not authorised to make purchases. The finding of the AO is only to the extent that "enquiry conducted at the given address lends to the conclusion that no business establishment ever existed in the name and style of Bayalish Mouza Store at Sankhataras. Whatever it is, as nothing has been established to show that the purchaser was not validly registered and that the assessee and the purchaser colluded, the deduction claimed by him on account of sales to this dealer amounting to Rs. 15,987.82 must be allowed. (vii) The last one is Madhabananda Das. The assessee except producing the declaration by Madhabananda Das, filed no other evidence. But it is a fact that this Madhabananda Das is a registered dealer and his registration number is CU.I.W. 445. As per the findings of the AO, "enquiries revealed that at the given address, it was found out that no business e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,29,417.63 2. Alok Pratisthan Rs. 4,01,793.45 3. Sankar Store Rs. 13,19,937.50 4. Biswanath Sen Rs. 32,218.75 5. Balaram Behera Rs. 11,95,193.43 6. Ganesh Store Rs. 6,81,625.95 7. Alaka Bhandar Rs. 5,88,303.30 . Total Rs. 49,48,540.01 (i) I have already discussed the claim of the assessee in respect of Alok Paratisthan (Sl. No. 2), Ganesh Store (Sl. No. 6) and Alaka Bhandar (serial No. 7). The same reasonings will apply to this year. Following the same reasonings. I also the claim of deduction of the assessee in respect of sales to registered dealers in respect of these three dealers. (ii) The disputed claim is with respect of sales amounting to Rs. 7,29,417.63 to Trinath Bhandar, Bhairpur. The assessee in support of this claim not only filed declaration, but also filed an affidavit of Laxmidhar Sahoo, son of Ramachandra Sahoo of village Bhairpur, P.S. Salepur. That affidavit shows that said Laxmidhar Sahoo claimed to have effected purchases from the assessee's shop. As against this the AO observed as follows: "Enquiry has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also filed the declaration in support of the purchase. In the affidavit Maheswara Parida has stated to have made this purchase. As against this the AO has remarked that "the proprietor Maheshwara Parida has denied the purchase from the appellant. The dealer in a year has shown Rs. 10.00 lakhs sales to him and several other wholesalears have shown sales to him. With the total turnover from all it can be said that the dealer is a man of lakhs. But it has been ascertained that he is a poor man whose children live in starvation. "From the above observation of the AO, it becomes crystal clear that Mahewwara Parida is living. It further becomes clear that Maheswara Parida was issued a valid registration certificate and that he made purchases from the appellant. As against that the AO only making assertions that Maheswara Parida is a poor man and that his are children living in starvation and he denied to have made any purchase from the appellant, has placed no materials as to when and before whom Maheswara Parida expressed as such. This Sankar Store was very much mentioned in the notice issued by the AO on 7th Dec., 1974 vide serial No. 2 Regarding this, the assessee in his reply assert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered. Hence, in comparing the evidence of both the sides, the claim made by the assessee on this score must be allowed. (iv) The next item of claim is Biswanath Sen. The AO has found that the business of Biswanath Sen has been closed since 1966. The assessee has adduced no evidence to the contrary. He remained silent by producing the declaration. In view of the said evidence, the claim has been rightly disallowed and it must be upheld. (v) The next is Balaram Behera. The assessee has produced declarations issued by Balaram Behera of Madhyasasana. The purchases made by the Balarama Behera of Madhyasasana from one Dinabandhu Sahu Bros. of Malgodown, Cuttack-3, figured for decision before this Tribunal in Second Appeal NO. 460 of 1976-77 disposed of on 31st March, 1977. The relevant portion with respect of the claim of that dealer Dinabanddu Sahu Bros. in respect of sales to Balaram Behera of Madhayasasana, has been disposed of in the following manner: "The second point in regarding disallowance of sales to registered dealer amounting to Rs. 57,339.73. Anmittedly Balaram Behera, is a registered dealer of Madhayasasana and his registration certificate has not been cancel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid that it was the duty of the appellant to produce Balaram Behera. Hence, in consideration of the evidence on record, I must say that the sale made by the appellant to Balaram Behera and the deductions claimed on that score must be allowed, once the Department has failed to prove as a fact that the registration certificate issued in favour of Balaam Behara is not a valid registration and has not been done in accordance with law. In absence of such evidence it cannot be said that the appellant has failed to prove his sales in favour of Balaram Behera. Hence considering the evidence on record I must say that the claim of the appellant of deduction on account of sale to Balaram Behera of Madhyasasana, must be allowed To sum up the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the appellant is entitled to deductions claimed during the year 1972-73 and they are as follows: 1. Trinath Bhandar Rs. 7,29,417.63 2. Alok Pratisthan Rs. 4,01,793.45 3. Shankar Store Rs. 13,19,987.50 4. Balaram Behera Rs. 11,95,193.43 5. Ganesh Store Rs. 6,81,625.95 6. Alaka Bhandar Rs. 5,88,303.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anta Bhandar, bearing registration number BP. 1627. The claim is to the tune of Rs. 10,203.35. The AO has remarked that the dealer Srikanta Bhandar bearing registration number B.F. I. 627 of Bolangir denied to have purchased and signed the declaration. In the two notices issued by the AO, this dealer has not been mentioned. The fact that this dealer has denied purchases and denied issue of registration certificate was not brought to the notice of the assessee that he was examined by the AO on 30h Aug., 1975. In view of that even though there are materials, the AO has omitted to utilise them. In view of that, this aspect must go back to the AO, who do supply all informations regarding Srikanta Bhandar to the assessee and after giving him opportunity to rebut the same, complete the assessment according to law. (iv) The claims of Trinath Bhandar and Sankar Store have already been discussed in the previous years and those reasonings will apply to this year also. In view of that, the claims made by the appellant in respect of sales made to these two dealers, must be allowed. (v) I shall then take up the claim of Balajee Traders, Ranihat, CU.I.E. 1891. The appellant has produced decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssumed that the statement given by Sri S. Ch. Parida is correct. But he did not think of testing the correctness or otherwise of the statement, which was taken at the back of the assessee. Hence, the AO has not followed the procedure which is to be followed while complying with the principle of natural justice. Therefore, this matter will have to go back to the AO, who do furnish a copy of the statement to the assessee and demand his explanation and if necessary he do also give further opportunity to the assessee to rebut the said evidence by adducing oral or documentary evidence as is desired by the assessee and dispose of the same after taking into consideration the explanation of the appellant. (vi) The next claim is regarding Binapani Stores. Regarding this, the appellant has claimed deduction to the tune of Rs. 12,51,667.03. The appellant has not only filed the declarations issued by Sri Harihar Mohanty, proprietor of Binapani Stores having registration number CU. II. 3514 issued on 28th Sept., 1973 but also an affidavit. From this it becomes clear that the assessee has proved that this Binapani Store is a registered dealer and regarding this the AO stated as follows: "Enq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i or at Bhingarpur. Contacted leading dealers at Puri but none could say about this dealer. Conducted enquiry at Bhingarpur, but none could say about the existence of such a person Contacted the Sarpanch of Bhingarpur Gram Panchayat, who has given in writing that, there is no existence of such a man Jharendra Das son of Dhaneswar Das, Ramachandrapur, Bhingarpur. Copy of the Sarpanch is enclosed." But these things though collected by the Inspector, were not supplied to the appellant. Hence. I an of opinion that even though some materials were collected, they were not put to the assessee and he was not confronted to the same, on the ground that it is the duty of the assessee to produce his purchaser, But I have already discussed the law and it is not the duty of the assessee to produce his purchaser. Once, these materials were not supplied to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn against him. Furthermore, I may say that the AO has not utilised that which is in the order. In view of that I do not find any necessity to remand this aspect of the case, specially in the notice issued on 7th Dec., 1974 this Jharendra Das does appear under serial No. 3 and in the said notice the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
