9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, and 1964-65; validity of findings by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal; exclusion of certain investments and income from assessments; questions of law arising from the Tribunal's decision.
Summary: The High Court of Orissa addressed references concerning the assessments for the mentioned years of the same individual assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessments with directions for a fresh assessment allowing the appellant to cross-examine witnesses. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that statements obtained u/s 131 cannot be used against the assessee without providing an opportunity for rebuttal. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of investments and income related to Kalinga Foundation Trust from the assessments. The Revenue filed applications u/s 256(1) for stating a case to the High Court, which were initially refused by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court identified eight questions of law arising from the Revenue's proposed questions, including the Tribunal's handling of evidence, the existence of the Kalinga Foundation Trust, and ownership of certain assets. The Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to send a statement of case to the High Court based on these questions. During the hearing, it was acknowledged that the Tribunal's findings regarding the assessee's opportunity to rebut statements and the consideration of evidence remained undisturbed. The High Court found that the Tribunal's findings were flawed as they did not give due weight to relevant evidence and were vulnerable, necessitating reconsideration. The High Court emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and explanations. It was concluded that a final decision could only be made after such an opportunity was granted. The Tribunal was instructed to reconsider the evidence and make decisions accordingly. The reference applications were disposed of, leaving it to the Tribunal to take further action based on the High Court's guidance. No costs were awarded in the matter. J. M. Mahapatra agreed with the decision.
|
