TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant Commissioner dated 19th May, 1979. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, one of the items of turnover disputed was in relation to a sum of Rs. 33,287. It was argued before him that the assessing officer had not given sufficient opportunity to produce the remaining C or D form and the appellants herein produced D forms for Rs. 33,287 and requested that the turnover may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on this turnover." The Board came to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in saying that sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessees by the assessing officer and therefore set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the assessing officer. It is this order of the Board that is challenged in this appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The point now to be examined is whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in remanding the matter back to the assessing officer. The pre-assessment notice in the present case was dated 27th October, 1978, and the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately on 18th January, 1979, the assessing officer intimated the assessees that fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
