9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), for the year ending March 31, 1962, the Commercial Tax Officer rejected a claim of Rs. 1,20,261.79 under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the 1941 Act. The assessee's appeal to the Assistant Commissioner having been unsuccessful, he preferred a revision to the Additional Commissioner which was also rejected. Thereupon the assessee filed a review petition before the Additional Commissioner, who, by a composite order dated March 10, 1970, in review cases 4 and 5 of 1969-70, declined to review his earlier revisional orders of September, 1969, made in revision cases 76 and 178 of 1967-68. Further revisions were preferred by the assessee from the order dated March 10, 1970 to the Board of Revenue. In consequence of a change in the forum due to the amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visional order by the Additional Commissioner amounts to a revisional order passed in the matter of assessment?" 3.. It will appear from Order No. 4 dated August 30, 1990, passed in this case that even though paper book was duly served upon the respondent-assessee with intimation that the matter would be listed on August 30, 1990 for orders, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent on that date or on any date thereafter and no affidavit-in-opposition was filed. Accordingly, the matter was heard by us in the absence of the respondent. 4.. It was contended by Mr. D. Majumdar, the learned State Representative, that the Tribunal below committed an error by entertaining the revision cases against order dated March 10, 1970, passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate or revisional order from an order of assessment." We have already seen that by the order dated March 10, 1970, the Additional Commissioner rejected the prayer for review without interfering with his previous revisional orders. The effect was that the previous revisional orders dated September 19, 1969 and September 18, 1969, passed in Revision Cases 178 and 76, respectively were left untouched and unchanged. What the assessee was aggrieved with, were those earlier revisional orders passed in September, 1969. The review application was an attempt to get the said revisional orders changed or interfered with. But that attempt having failed, it cannot be said from any point of view that by the order dated March 10, 1970, the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
