Commissioner of Income Tax vs Onkar Prasad Shaw

S.C. Sen, J.—The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal''s finding that the assessee had not a reasonable opportunity to comply with or was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the terms of the notices u/s 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed on no materials and was otherwise unreasonable or perverse ?"

The assessment year is 1958-59.

The only thing that has been challenged is the Tribunal''s finding that the assessee did not have reasonable opportunity to comply with or was prevented by sufficient cause from complying with the terms of the notices u/s 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").

The original assessment was completed u/s 144 read with Section 147(a) of the Act on March 17, 1971. An application u/s 146 was dismissed by the Income Tax Officer on July 15, 1971. The Appellate Assistant, Commissioner, on a review of the facts, came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing within the meaning of Section 146(1)(iii) of the Act. Elaborate reasoning has been given as to why this conclusion was reached.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ultimately ordered that the Income Tax Officer would make a fresh assessment, after communicating to the appellant the particulars of cash credits, viz., dates and amounts of the parties concerned as also the reason why the loans were not considered as genuine loans and how this fact was concealed at the time of the original assessment.

The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Elaborate grounds have been given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as to why the Income Tax Officer had not given proper materials to the assessee which merited rebuttal by the assessee.

We fail to see how the Tribunal has committed any error in this case.

Having regard to the ambit of this question, we answer the question by saying that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that it had reached. The question is answered in favour of the assessee.

There will be no order as to costs.

Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.

I agree.