9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such findings. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is find that after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of non-production of any material before it by the petitioners reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued by the Revisional Authority the Assessing Authority was under an obligation to meet out all the directions, but it appears that the Assessing Officer impressed with the fact that no evidence was produced before it by the assessee reiterated the earlier order, while it was under an obligation to decide the matter as directed by the Revisional Authority. When the important and vital issues are not considered by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order after remand cannot be sustained under the law - the petitioner shall cause appearance before the Assessing Officer on 04.03.2013. - W.P.No.15484/2007 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2013 - Krishn Kumar Lahoti And M.A. Siddiqui,JJ. Shri G.N. Purohit, Shri L.N.Soni, Senior Adovcates with Shri S. Nema, Shri Mukesh Agarwal and Shri Abhishek Oswal, Advocates for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agarwal, Govt. Advocate with Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate for respondents. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o produced documentary evidence that they were using generator sets by hiring it and for this purpose, they produced contract agreement before the authority. On the basis of material produced before the Assessing Officer and the Revisional Authority, the Revisional Authority recorded a finding that no proper evidence was collected in respect of the sales for the year 1997-98. The report of the task force was nonspeaking and without any supporting documentary evidence. After three years of the initial assessment order, if the unit is found closed in physical inspection, then on the basis of this, a finding cannot be recorded that before three years the unit was not functional. If the allegations are that the unit had not used the raw material in the manufacturing of coke briquettes and has sold it in the market for tax evasion, then for that purpose, the documentary evidence could have been collected and an opportunity ought to have been extended to the assessee for explanation, and thereafter a speaking order could have been passed by the Assessing Officer. The findings recorded by the Assessing Officer on the basis of report of task force was not on sound reasoning. (c) In resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including bilty, challan, etc.; (iii) if the payment was made by cheque or draft, then particulars; (iv) any other evidence which the assessee wants to produce. The assessee had sought time to file reply in respect of following queries; (i) the report of task force dated 24.5.2000; (ii) the statement of local Sarpanch ; (iii) in respect of verification by the Department that most of the purchaser units were not found in existence; (iv) in respect of non-payment of sale price by cheque or draft. The Assessing Officer had also directed the assessee to file reply on the aforesaid points. It appears that case was listed on 14.03.05, 8.8.05, 30.9.05, 24.10.05 and was adjourned for filing of the reply. On 6.1.06, when none had appeared for the assessee, the matter was closed, and on 12.01.06, the Assessing Officer passed an order reiterating the earlier order and same tax and penalty was again imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Against the Order (Annexure P/8) dated 12.01.06, a revision was preferred by the petitioner, but vide Order (Annexure P/11) dated 19.07.06 the revision was dismissed. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Officer and they had duly certified that unit was functional. These reports were ignored by the Assessing Officer; (v) That, the Assessing Officer ought to have passed a reasoned order, while on earlier occasion, a format was prepared and by the help of computer and all the assessment orders were passed which were not speaking orders; (vi) That, which transactions were found bogus, the Assessing Officer should specify and obtain an explanation from the assessee and thereafter to decide the matter; (vii) That, the report of CBI was not available on record. The report of CBI could have been treated as a report only, but on the basis of such report, the assessment order could not have been passed. 8. From perusal of the order after the remand (Annexure P/8), it appears that the Assessing Officer on page 5 of the order recorded only one fact that no evidence was produced by the assessee inspite of allowing time to produce the record, and on the basis of this, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order reiterating the earlier assessment order. While as per the remand order, the Assessing Officer was required to frame a fresh assessment order after complying th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
