AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this appeal u/s 260A of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act''), the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 20-1-2006 passed by the income tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench ''F'' (''Tribunal'') in IT(SS) A No. 102/Del/2002 for the block period from 1-4-1986 to 14-6-1996. According to the revenue, the assessee had business transactions with Ms/ Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Limited (for short ''PFSL'') and certain bills in this regard were recovered from the premises of some transporters suggesting that purchases were made by the assessee from PFSL. The assessee denied having any transactions with PFSL.
In the first round of litigation, the matter went up before the Tribunal which by an order dated 13-2-2001 specifically remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to make necessary inquiries from PFSL to ascertain whether there had been any business transactions between the Assessee and PFSL.
After waiting for almost one year, the Assessing Officer issued summons u/s 131 of the Act on 8-3-2000 to PFSL to file a copy of its accounts pertaining to the Assessee on or before 15-3-2002. PFSL was also required to attend the hearing on 15-3-2002.
It appears that PFSL received the summons and sent a response dated 13-3-2002 (which was received by the Assessing Officer on 18-3- 2002) requesting for an adjournment.
On 19-3-2002 the Assessing Officer sent another summons to PFSL but it is not clear whether the second summons was served upon PFSL. The summons required PFSL to produce the required information on or before 26-3-2002. On that date also no one was appeared or any written submissions were filed and therefore on 27-3-2002 the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order reiterating the earlier view that transactions had taken place between PFSL and the assessee.
Again the matter went up in appeal before the Tribunal, being the second round arising out of the order dated 27-3-2002. The Tribunal noticed that not only had Assessing Officer issued summons to PFSL virtually at last minute but no enquiry seems to have been made by Assessing Officer to comply with : directions given by Tribunal in its order of 13-2-2001.
We have also asked learned counsel for the Revenue to inform us whether the summons dated 19 March, 2002 was served upon PFSL or not but there is no satisfactory reply except to say that since the earlier summons were served upon PFSL, it is presumed that the second summons were served. We cannot accept this presumption and there is no material placed on record by the revenue to confirm receipt of the summons by PFSL.
We do not see any infirmity in the view expressed by the Tribunal in its order dated 20-1-2006. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed.