9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 13 and to add the sum of Rs. 1,07,000 as income in the manner it has done ?" The facts of the case are set out in the statement of the case. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had rejected the books maintained by the assessee. They have given some reasons for not relying on the account books maintained by the assessee. In his appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee challenged the finding given by the Income-tax Officer as also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the effect that there are grounds for rejecting the accounts maintained by the assessee. The Tribunal being a final fact-finding body was required to consider whether the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Income-tax Officer to examine in every case the method of accounting employed by the assessee and (i) to see whether or not it is regularly employed, and (ii) to determine whether the income, profits and gains of the assessee can properly be deduced therefrom. The decision as to the method of accounting is to be arrived at first by the Income-tax Officer after a careful scrutiny of the accounts whether they be simple or complicated, and the power is to be reasonably and judicially exercised, which excludes any subjective or arbitrary decision by the Income-tax Officer ; but the power so exercised is not clothed with finality and is not excluded from review by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in reviewing the order the appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his contention, his case compares favourably with that of Pierce Leslie Company. The Tribunal did not come to the conclusion that the yield shown by Pierce Leslie Company cannot be relied upon. On the whole we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is a highly cursory one. It has not considered the relevant material in the case. Its conclusion that the addition should have been Rs. 1,88,904 does not appear to be supported by any material on record. We are of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice that the Tribunal should re-examine the question arising for decision in this case afresh. For the reasons mentioned above, our answer to the question referred to us is that the Tribunal's order does not contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
