1995 (2) TMI 94 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Observance of the principles of natural justice.
2. Alleged clandestine premium on the sale of cigarettes.
3. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses.
4. Allegation of bias against the Assessing Officer.

Observance of the Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee contended that the assessment order violated the principles of natural justice because it was based on statements and materials not disclosed to the assessee, and witnesses were not offered for cross-examination. The Tribunal held that the right to cross-examine witnesses is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of natural justice, and adverse evidence and material relied upon should be disclosed to the assessee unless it is of collateral nature. The Tribunal concluded that there was no denial of natural justice as the materials in question were secondary and subordinate.

Alleged Clandestine Premium on the Sale of Cigarettes:
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 26,20,51,000 to the assessee's income on account of "Premium on sale of cigarettes," based on the "Twin Branding System," where identical cigarette brands with slightly different names were sold at different prices, and the premium was collected clandestinely. The Tribunal found that the addition was based on several factors, including the analysis of financial results showing a loss from the sale of cigarettes, the invoice price being lower than the manufacturing cost, and the impact of excise duty on the trade. The Tribunal upheld the addition as it was supported by substantial evidence.

Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The assessee argued that the denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were used against it violated natural justice. The Tribunal noted that cross-examination is not always required and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found that the statements of witnesses and the report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) were secondary materials used to support the main issue of the clandestine premium and did not warrant cross-examination.

Allegation of Bias Against the Assessing Officer:
The assessee alleged bias against the Assessing Officer based on a news report implicating the officer in a false bank account case and the sequence of events leading to the assessment order. The Tribunal found no merit in the allegation of bias, noting that the news report was not given by the Assessing Officer and there was no evidence to suggest bias. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer acted in accordance with the law and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal adjudicated the preliminary issue of natural justice against the assessee, holding that there was no denial of natural justice. The appeal on merits was to be heard in the normal course.