9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Justification of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relying on another excise contractor's yield without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut. 2. Whether the Tribunal can rely on the yield of only one contractor to determine the yield of the assessee. Analysis: 1. The case involved a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the assessment of an association of persons engaged in abkari contract. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's return and conducted a best judgment assessment due to unreliable account books. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's contention based on an Excise Superintendent's certificate, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision. The Tribunal relied on another contractor's yield data without giving the assessee a chance to rebut, leading to a question of natural justice principles being violated. The High Court referred to precedents emphasizing the importance of disclosing comparable cases to the assessee for a fair hearing. Citing relevant cases, the court held that the Tribunal's reliance on the other contractor's data without allowing the assessee to respond was unjustified, ruling in favor of the assessee on this issue. 2. Regarding the second issue, the court addressed whether the Tribunal can base a best judgment assessment on a single comparable case. The assessee's counsel did not argue for the necessity of multiple cases in such assessments. The court agreed with this stance, stating that there is no legal requirement for multiple comparable cases in best judgment assessments. Consequently, the court answered the second question in the affirmative, against the assessee. The judgment concluded without awarding any costs to either party.
|
