SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of s. 146 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not a reasonable opportunity to comply with or was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the terms of the notices under s. 143(2) and s. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was based on no materials and was otherwise unreasonable or perverse ?"
(2.) THE assessment year is 1958-59. The only thing that has been challenged is the Tribunal's finding that the assessee did not have reasonable opportunity to comply with or was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the terms of the notices under s. 143(2) and s. 142(1) of the IT Act. The original assessment was completed under s. 144 r/w s. 147(a) of the IT Act on 17th March, 1971. An application under s. 146 was dismissed by the ITO on 15th July, 1971. The AAC on a review of the facts, came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing within the meaning of s. 146(1)(iii) of the IT Act. Elaborate reasoning has been given as to why this conclusion was reached.
(3.) THE AAC ultimately ordered that the ITO would make a fresh assessment, after communicating to the appellant, the particulars of cash credits, viz., dates and amounts of the parties concerned as also the reason why the loans were not considered as genuine loans and how this fact was concealed at the time of the original assessment.;