9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85 by the AAC because on that day Shri R.K. Mehra, Chartered Accountant did appear and requested for adjournment which was in fact promised, and second that confirmation of assessments at Rs. 7,0000, Rs. 75,000 for the first two years respectively and Rs. 80,000 for each of the last two years was not proper. The other grounds are consequential in nature. 2. The AAC's short order we like to notice as under :--- " These appeals are against the orders of the ITO passed u/s 144 of the IT Act for the above asst. years. 2. In these cases several opportunities were provided to the appellant for the representation of the case but every time request for adjournment was made which was duly granted. On the date of hearing, i.e.,21-3-85Shri R.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AAC stage, still the assessments could not be said to be related to past records because nothing is stated in relation to business activities in the years under appeal by the lower authorities : Asst. year Returned income Assessed income u/s 143(3) 1970-71 23,870 31,750 1971-72 35,320 39,270 1972-73 38,970 41,210 1973-74 28,570 32,337 1974-75 36,100 40,100 On the other hand, the ITO after noticing the above figures resorted to higher estimates by stating that considering the history of the case the assessee apparently thought it advantageous to quote ex parte assessments, which attitude is not considered correct. 5. From the last sentence of the AAC's order it is clear that pattern of past assessments and justification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for passing ex parte order raising best judgment assessments, for which the cause of action can be severals, like default of notices under section 250(2), 139(2), 142(1), 143(2) etc. of the Act, the assessee's attitude, including non-cooperation, must be kept aside when incomes are being estimated because for penalising defaults there are specific provisions under the Income-tax Act, like section 271(1)(b) of Act, reproduced below, which can be invoked : " 271. (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-- (a) (b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of sec. 142 or sub-section (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
