Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bafekyh Export House

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.—These three reference applications relate to the identical questions. Therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.

The assessment years involved are 1983-84 and 1984-85, The Tribunal held that the onus relating to some entries has been properly discharged and credit worthiness has been established. The Revenue''s stand is that the onus has been wrongly placed and the true essence of the transaction has not been analysed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal took an overall view of the matter. According to him, the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer in relation to certain purchases and the interpretation of the entries relating to credits weighed with the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusions which are essentially factual. So far as the amount standing to the credit of the partners which the Revenue treated as undisclosed income not satisfactorily explained by the assesses, the authority seems to have not taken into account the true import thereof. The assessee''s stand was that there was no cash actually introduced and, on the other hand, the entries were made by way of adjustment.

In the normal course, we would have asked the Tribunal to draw up a supplementary statement of facts indicating the actual position. Since the question of onus and acceptability of the materials produced has not been properly analysed by the Tribunal, we find substance in the stand of learned counsel that instead of answering the reference, we may direct the Tribunal to rehear the appeals. The suggestion appears to be fair because the Tribunal as the last fact-finding authority can analyse the factual position, refer to the materials and documents, and arrive at a conclusion on the factual aspects. We, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to do so.

These applications are accordingly disposed of.