9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (4) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me from two sources of business, a cinema business and a labour contract business, was considered for the purpose of assessment, for all the years except the assessment year 1962-63, when the labour contract business was discontinued. As the petitioner did not produce any books of account in respect of either business, the Income-tax officer estimated the income from each source, in respect of each assessment year, taking a net profit of 30 per cent. before allowance for depreciation in respect of the cinema business and a net profit of 12 1/2 per cent. in respect of the labour contract business, and made the several assessments. The income so assessed was Rs. 27,733 tor the assessment year 1958-59, Rs. 6,100 for the assessment year 1939-60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit to 23 per cent. The petitioner then applied in revision to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay. Upon the request of the petitioner the case were transferred to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Uttar Pradesh-1. During the pendency of the revision applications the petitioner filed an affidavit and written arguments thereafter before the Commissioner. He also applied for a personal hearing. On May 11, 1966, the Commissioner disposed of the revision applications by a common order. After considering that rates applied by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he observed : " I have carefully gone through the contentions raised by the assessee in the revision petitions as well as in the written arguments subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proceeding before the Commissioner in revision is a quasi-judicial proceeding, it does not imply that the party applying in revision has a right to be heard personally. That was the view taken by me in Babu Lal Kedia v. Income-tax Officer (Civil Misc. Writ No. 2816 of 1960--decided on May 10, 1966 and I referred to the decision of this court in V. C. Maheshwari v. State of U. P. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders are invalid because no opportunity was given by the Commissioner to the petitioner to be heard personally must be rejected. The other contention of the petitioner is that the Commissioner relied upon material prejudicial to the petitioner without an opportunity to the petitioner to meet it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
