9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act and ultimately, after following the usual procedure, a revised order was made by the assessing authority on 26th September, 1966. The petitioner appealed successfully before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who set aside the order of the assessing authority and remanded the matter once over to it to enable the assessing authority to give an adequate and fair opportunity to the assessee to explain the incriminating material recovered in the course of the search or raid, as stated above. The order of remand was made on 6th June, 1967. The assessing authority, however, on 13th June, 1967, and 8th July, 1967, asked the petitioner to produce his accounts but never gave the impression that he was willing to allow the assessee to insp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the incriminating slips and material. Ultimately the assessing authority refused the adjournment and finally assessed the petitioner under the impugned order. The petitioner has come up to this court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of assessment dated 31st August, 1967. The only contention of the petitioner is that he had no opportunity to explain the proposal after scrutinising the slips and diaries. His case is that after remand by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the only opportunity that was given to him to enable him to inspect the slips or the incriminating material was in the proposal notice itself. He further states that the extracts made by the assessing authority in support of the proposal and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a substantial compliance of this well established equitable doctrine. The assessing authority, however, thought that the extracts he gave as annexures to his proposal notice dated 14th August, 1967, were sufficient for the purpose. This is a matter for opinion. But if the assessee, who is the aggrieved person, wants a further opportunity to scrutinise the material which is going to be used against him and thereafter submit his objections to the proposal, then such a request ought not to be lightly brushed aside. In this case it has been done. The petitioner's request for ten days' time from 31st August, 1967, was negatived. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
