PURISONS AUTO FINANCE P LTD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
S.P. Kapur, Judicial Member -
(1.) THE appeal is by the assessee, a resident private company. THE assessment year involved is 1977-78 and the previous year ended on 31-12-1976.
(2.) Facts admitted and briefly stated are that the assessee did not file return under Section (1) of Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee also did not comply with notice under Section (2) of Section 139. No compliance was made of notices issued under Section (1) of Section 142 of the Act. In fact, the assessee is not aggrieved on the score that the assessment has been framed under Section 144 of the Act. The grievance of the assessee is in relation to quantum of income assessed.
In appeal, the assessee took three specific grounds as under before the Commissioner (Appeals):
1. That the assessment order framed by the learned ITO is bad in law.
2. That the appellant could not attend to the hearing fixed for 28-1-1980 due to serious illness outside the town.
3. The appellant reserves the right to add any other ground at the time of the hearing of the appeal.
(3.) THE Commissioner (Appeals) held that ground No. 1 was vague and general while in the second ground, the assessee appears to suggest that the assessment should not have been made ex parte under Section 144 but he declined to entertain the said ground since the application of the assessee made under Section 146 of the Act stood rejected and the said order has not been agitated upon by the assessee in appeal. He further observed that in the appeal which was before him the assessee could agitate only the quantum of income, hence he rejected the second ground also. As the assessee has not put in appearance before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal was heard ex parte, ground No. 3 taken by the assessee before him stood rejected too since it was not substantive one.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.