Tax liability cannot rest on unproven receipt of C forms without evidence of actual use by the assessee.

Tax liability could not be sustained merely because C forms were said to have been received by the assessee's authorised representative, where there was no reliable proof that the forms were handed over to or used by the assessee. The finding of delivery rested only on oral information, without written material or an opportunity to cross-examine the person said to have made that statement. Even on an assumed receipt by the representative, no finding showed actual utilisation by the assessee. In the absence of proof of utilisation, the demand could not be upheld and the revision succeeded for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether tax liability could be sustained on the assessee on the basis of C forms allegedly received by its counsel when there was no reliable proof that the forms were handed over to or utilised by the assessee.

Analysis: The assessment was founded on the assumption that ten C forms received by the assessee's authorised representative had been passed on to the assessee and used by it. The finding that the forms were delivered to the assessee rested only on oral information, without any written material or opportunity to cross-examine the person said to have made that statement. Even if receipt of the forms by the representative was assumed, no finding had been recorded that the forms were actually utilised by the assessee. In the absence of proof of utilisation, liability could not be fastened merely on the basis of receipt of the forms.

Conclusion: The tax demand could not be upheld on the existing findings, and the revision succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---