9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of his contention for admission of additional evidence, which has not been dealt with by the Tribunal.) The ld. senior departmental representative Mr. R. K. Bali while addressing us, repeated the very same contentions mentioned by him in M. P. But he was unable to controvert the fact that the two cases (1959) 37 ITR 151 ((SC) and (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC) were identical and same but facts in the instant case, were quite different from the said two cases. In (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC), (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) stands followed and their Lordships at p. 383 of the report have extracted and placed the very same observation, which is extracted and placed by us in para 27 of our order while dealing with the issue. The ld. departmental representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounts was also based on a conjecture that the books of account of the appellant did not represent the true state of affairs and was contrary to the statements contained in the order of the AAC to the effect that no defects of any other suspicious feature had been found by the ITO in the accounts of the appellant." Finally, para (D) at pp. 167-168 of the reports, read: "(D) it was next contended that the criticism of the Tribunal regard to the AAC's looking at the information gathered subsequently was equally without substance. That information had been gathered by the Addl. ITO, Madurai, after having duly communicated with Addl. ITO Porbandar, in connection with the penalty notice addressed to the appellant and the ITO, Junagad, in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding that information which had been gathered subsequently at Janagad under the circumstances herein stated. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in not considering the evidence which was taken subsequently at that end at the instance of the department itself and any conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was, it was contended vitiated by improper rejection of relevant and material evidence." It was on the basis of some of the above quoted observations that their Lordships at p. 170 further observed that— "........This passage certainly did not show that the Tribunal had applied its mind to the evidence which was there on the file of the appellant in the shape of information gathered subsequently and it merely confirmed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no difference of facts between the two cases (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC), it was not mentioned in so many words that even (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC) goes against the Revenue, because it would have been academic, once was have dealt with the very same words which are available at p. 383 in (1983) 87 ITR 370 (SC) and p. 170 in (1959) 37 151 (SC). In (1973) 87 ITR 370 (SC) we well, material was placed before the AAC who remanded the case to the ITO as he found that the evidence of Durga Prasad had been taken without giving any opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine. In that case, the AAC further directed the ITO to examine the assessee and also to investigate the physical movement of the shares in question during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
