Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1980 (7) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... main ground was that in a survey made on 26-4-1977 of the business premises of M/s. Ram Rikhdas Roopchandra Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as the Lucknow party their account books were seized. On an examination of those books it was found that the Lucknow party had paid a sum of ₹ 27,600/- as premium on the purchase of 1200 tins of Vanaspati Ghee over and above the cost price to the assessee on 28-5-1973 and there was no corresponding entry of that payment found in the assessee's books. When the assessee was confronted with that material, the assessee admitted to have sold 1200 tins of vegetable ghee to the Lucknow party on 7-5-1973, which sale was duly entered in the books of both the parties. The assessee, however, denied to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he assessee of cross-examining that party. That being so, the revenue authorities were, in his opinion, not justified in rejecting the accounted version and in making the enhancement. In the result, the revision was allowed and the disclosed turnover was accepted. Being aggrieved the Commissioner has filed the present revision. 3. It was submitted before me by Sri V. D. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel, that on the view taken by him that the assessee had been denied an opportunity of cross-examining the Lucknow party, the Addl. Judge Revisions should have remanded the case for affording such an opportunity to the assessee because it was only an irregularity which had crept in the proceedings during the course of the assessment. It was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with three directions of which one was that certain witnesses should be summoned in the presence of the assessee and the assessee should be given an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision against that order and the Revising Authority came to a contrary conclusion and took the view that the appellate authority was not justified in remanding the matter, inasmuch as the assessee was not entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, who had been examined by the Sales Tax Officer, SIB. The view taken by this Court was that the approach of the Revising Authority was wrong and it was observed : It is thus clear that the proceedings of assessment under the Act must be conducted in accordance with the principl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or by the Appellate and Revising Authority under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act respectively. 5. It was submitted, however, on behalf of the assessee by Sri Bharatji Agrawal that the facts of the instant case are different from the facts of M/s. Premier Motors (P) Ltd. (Supra), inasmuch as in that case no effort had been made by the Assessing Authority to summon the witnesses required by the assessee and make them available for cross-examination while in the present case such an effort had been made. However, that effort proved to be of no result and the question was as to whether there was any material on record on the basis of which the accounted version of the assessee could be rejected. On that view of the matter, according to the cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osed. No further attempt was made by the Department to trace out that party. The assessee, as noted above, filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful and then filed a revision. In its grounds of revision against that order a grievance was made by the assessee of the denial of opportunity to cross-examine the representative of the Lucknow party and in one of the paragraphs viz., para 8, it was also stated that the appellate Court had seriously erred in overlooking the contention at the time of the arguments that the firm was in existence and its representative was available within the hands reach of the applicant. The prayer made in the revision was that a reasonable opportunity might be given to the assessee for cross-examining the Lucknow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates