2011 (10) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the Respondent : Dinesh Mehta DR. VINEET KOTHARI J.-These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated September 17, 2003 whereby the assessee's appeal to the extent of imposition of tax of Rs. 3,96,117 for the assessment years 1997-98 and Rs. 3,25,150 for the assessment year 1998-99 has been set aside. The Deputy Commissioner ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2 on some other issue, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the case back to the assessing authority, which portion of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by the learned Tax Board also in the same order. The learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Sharad Tatiya, submitted that the learned Tax Board ought to have remanded the case back to the assessing authority in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ills produced by the assessee, does not appear to be justified since the Revenue lost its opportunity to cross-examine such evidence before the higher appellate forum of Tax Board. Particularly, when the Tax Board was aware of the matter that proceedings for 1998-99 on the issue of Rs. 1,79,812 demand was already remanded to the assessing authority who was seized of the said matter, the learned Ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X