9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Bank of Baroda on 15th Oct., 1980 for Rs. 50,000 each in favour of his sons, Ashokkumar Singh and Shivkumar Singh and one from Central Bank of India on 16th Feb., 1981 in favour of Shri Balbirsingh. The Assessing Officer further mentioned that the applications made by the assessee for obtaining the drafts were obtained from the banks and it was confirmed that the assessee itself and none-else had purchased those drafts from the bank. The assessee had filed affidavit dt. 30th May, 1986 before the Assessing Officer stating that he never purchased any bank draft from any bank in favour of his sons and that his sons were major one was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department and two were students of LL.B. and were also engag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative, on the other hand, contended that the assessment order was served upon the assessee on 2nd Jan., 1987 and as such the appeal was rightly held by the CIT(A) as barred by limitation. 5. We have ourselves examined the record of the ITO and we find that there is postal receipt of having sent the assessment order by registered post to the assessee. The postal acknowledgement is also in the file but it does not bear signature of the assessee and any date. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that there was service of assessment order along with the demand notice upon the assessee on 2nd Jan., 1987 or on any later date. The assessee had filed application dt. 3rd Feb., 1989 for grant of copies of the assessment orders for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive submissions of the parties and perused the record. As stated above, the postal acknowledgement in the file of the Assessing Officer does not bear signature of any person and so also it does not bear any date of service. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the assessee was not served upon the order of assessment and the demand notice for the instant asst. yr. 1981-82. We are at a loss to understand as to wherefrom the Assessing Officer categorically claimed that the assessment order was served upon the assessee on 2nd Jan., 1987. Taking all these facts and circumstances into account, it is held that the appeal before the CIT(A) was not barred by limitation. 7. In view of this finding, we would have normally set aside the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the term 'best judgment'. It is needless to say that the judicial authorities have time and again cautioned that the best judgment assessment should accord with fair play and justice; the Assessing Officer must not act vindictively or capriciously or with a view to punish the assessee for non-compliance. It was observed by the Privy Council in CIT vs. Laxminarain (1937) 5 ITR 170 (PC) that the Officer is to make an assessment to the best of his' judgment against a person who is in default as regards supplying information; he must not act dishonestly, vindictively or capriciously because he himself has to exercise judgment in the matter. There is echo in the assessment order that the Assessing Officer was well informed of the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
