Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the disallowance of the assessee's claim for revenue expenditure was justified when the assessment was influenced by information obtained from the departmental authorities without disclosure to the assessee and without giving him an opportunity to meet it.
Analysis: The assessment proceeded on the basis of a letter and other information received from the Excise Department, relied on to support the conclusion that the Government's earlier works had been destroyed and that the assessee had necessarily incurred capital expenditure. That material was not disclosed to the assessee despite his request for copies, and he was denied an opportunity to controvert it. Where a finding is reached on material received behind the back of a party and the party is prevented from challenging it, the resulting assessment is vitiated. The Court also noted that the lease terms themselves indicated that the original works had not been treated as destroyed, reinforcing the prejudice caused by the undisclosed material.
Conclusion: The disallowance was not justified. The assessment was vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the assessee succeeded on the reference.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment based on material obtained and used behind the assessee's back, without affording an opportunity to rebut it, is invalid for breach of natural justice.