JUDGEMENT
Egbert Singh, Accountant Member -
(1.)THE first two appeals are by the revenue and the other two appeals are by the assessee. All relate to the consolidated order of the AAC by which he has partly sustained the order of the ITO. Briefly speaking, the facts and the background of the case are as under.
(2.)For the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the assessing officer discussed the facts in details. For the assessment year 1980-81, the return was filed on 1-10-1980 which was assessed under Section 143(1). Later on, the ITO had information that the firm M/s. Garui Kanta Kalita & Co. had income from Huller Rice Mill which was in the earlier years shown as the assessee's income in his individual capacity. The assessing officer completed that assessment at nil observing that the income actually belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity. The ITO, therefore, took action under Section 147(a) and issued notice under Section 148. There was no response from the assessee and no return was filed. The ITO issued notice under Section 142(1) which was served on the assessee and in response to such notice under Section 142(1), Shri J. C. Chakraborty, an employee of the assessee appeared without accounts. The ITO heard the assessee and gave opportunity of being heard. In his detailed order, the ITO dealt with the claim of the assessee and facts as available before him to come to the conclusion that the assessee owned that Huller Rice Mill and, therefore, the income would have to be considered in his hands in his individual capacity. He completed the assessment as such under Section 143(3)/145(2) read with Section 147. The order was passed on 5-1-1985.
The assessee went in appeal before the AAC contending that the income as estimated by the ITO had no basis and may be deleted. The AAC mentioned that no additional ground has been raised by the assessee though a new point was tentatively included in the statement of submissions that no notice under Section 148 was served on the assessee. The AAC observed that from all intents, it was evident that the assessee was not relying on this point as his main basis of appeal, as he has not sought leave to adduce additional grounds there from. The AAC further went on to say that the initiation of the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Act was, therefore, to be treated to be in order. Thereafter, the AAC considered the merits of the case and allowed certain relief, for the assessment year 1980-81.
(3.)FOR the assessment year 1981-82 also, the ITO completed the assessment on similar lines which was taken by the assessee in appeal before the AAC who passed a consolidated order dated 9-12-85 as indicated above.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.