TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the reference, it is necessary to refer to the reference application moved before this court, and the orders passed thereon. The assessee had moved a reference application before the Tribunal praying for the reference of a number of questions, but the Tribunal referred only one question, which forms the subject-matter of I.T.R. No. 162 of 1978. The question referred by the Tribunal in that reference is whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no appeal lay to the AAC under s. 246(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, against the assessment relating to the addition of Rs. 32,529 to the machine account of the assessee when the assessment in that regard was made on an agreed basis. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of this question could be called for. We may now set out the facts relevant for the decision of the question. The assessee had sold 19 centering machines to M/s. Modern Enterprisers of Kanpur at the rate of Rs. 15,500 per machine. The books of account indicated the cost at Rs. 9,432. The ITO had the report of the Vigilance Bureau and a board of experts in respect of costs of manufacturing machines, which according to them, after deducting 25% profit for the trader came to Rs. 7,331 per machine. The assessee was confronted with this report, and Satish Chandra, a partner of the firm, sent a letter stating that although the cost of the machine was much more than calculated by the board of experts, its income may be worked out on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isapprehension. Although the report was not traceable on the record, the Tribunal after considering the entire circumstances held that the assessee had been confronted with the experts report, and had written the letter after seeing the report, and had agreed to the income being computed in respect of the cost as worked out by the experts. Counsel for the assessee urged that there were a number of circumstances, which clearly indicated that the report of the expert was not on the record, and the ITO erred in referring to the report. It was also contended that the report was never shown to the assessee, and as such the admission made by the assessee in its letter would not bind the assessee. In this context, it was urged that the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
