9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain principles of law is involved in the matter and so it proceeded to state the case. Accordingly, a draft statement of the case was prepared and drawn up on 22nd Dec., 1983 and the matter was ordered to be put up on 13th Jan., 1984 for finalisation of the draft. A perusal of the order sheet goes to show that on that date Shri S. G. Saxena appeared for the Department but none was present for the assessee. The Tribunal passed the order for finalising the draft statement. However, it transpires that later on the same date appearance was put in by the ld. counsel for the assessee and on the same day the matter was ordered to be refined on 21st Jan., 1984. on the nest date fixed for hearing the case was adjourned to 24th Feb., 1984 on the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63 (Guj). 5. The ld. Departmental Representative has, on the other hand, strongly contended that since the draft statement has been ordered to be finalised by the Tribunal it has expressed its final opinion that a referable question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 29th Jan., 1982 and that for this reason it is not open to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. It was also submitted that the question supported by the Department is a question of law and that it should, therefore, be referred to the Hon ble Court for its opinion. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and facts on record. As has already been pointed out above, a draft statement was drawn up on 23rd Dec., 1983 and on 13th Jan., 1984 the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion agitated on behalf of the assessee. 7. The controversy before us stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakhiram Ramdas. In that case proceedings were started by the ITO against the assessee under/s. 31 (1) (a) of the IT Act, 1922 for making a reassessment. The Tribunal held in that case that it could not be said that there was any omission of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of his income under s. 22 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. A reference application was moved on behalf of the Department praying that a case may be stated and the question of law covering the controversy whether the ITO was justified in startin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
