YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Nitin Kesarwani, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
(2.) Both these revisions, which pertain to the assessment year 1997-98 and relate to the assessment undertaken under the 1948 Act as well as the CST 1956 Act, are with the consent of parties taken up for disposal together.
(3.) Both these revisions call in question an order of the Tribunal dated 2 July 2008 remanding the matter for fresh consideration to the level of the assessing authority. Proceedings were undertaken against the assessee based upon certain material which was gathered by the authorities under the Income-tax Act. The Department took the view that there had been deliberate non disclosure of transactions which were evidenced from the material that the Income Tax authorities collected and consequently made additions both under the CST 1956 as well as the 1948 Act for the Assessment Year 1997-98. The revisionist found success before the first appellate authority which proceeded to take the view that the assessee could not have been subjected to tax merely on the basis of inferences drawn from findings or reports of the Income-tax authorities. The first appellate authority has also held that the assessing authority had undertaken no inquiry in regard to the transactions of alleged sale or purchase nor had he contacted the Ahmadabad dealer for and on whose behalf allegedly the revisionist was maintaining and operating a particular bank account. Having noticed the above, however, the first appellate authority, without recording any independent finding on the question of sale or purchase, proceeded to annul the additions made by the assessing authority both under the CST 1956 as well as the 1948 Act. It is this procedure adopted by the first appellate authority which has been found fault with by the Tribunal and in the considered view of this Court correctly.;