Assessment fact-finding must be done by the assessing authority; enforcement wing inspection for trial production was quashed.

Jurisdiction for assessment-related fact-finding rested with the assessing authority, and not with the enforcement wing officer. Because the assessee was already before the jurisdictional assessing officer, who had inspected the factory and examined manufacturing process, burning loss and electricity consumption, a fresh inspection or trial production exercise by the enforcement wing in aid of the proposed assessment was held impermissible. The communication seeking deputation of officials for that purpose was therefore unsustainable and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enforcement wing officer had jurisdiction to undertake inspection and trial production in the assessee's premises when the jurisdictional assessing officer alone was seized of the assessment and fact-finding exercise.

Analysis: The assessee was registered before the jurisdictional assessing officer, who had already inspected the factory premises and examined the manufacturing process, burning loss, and electricity consumption for earlier assessment years. The impugned communication was issued by an enforcement wing officer seeking deputation of officials for trial production. The Court held that the assessment-related fact-finding exercise, including verification of loss and compliance with statutory restrictions, had to be undertaken by the assessing authority. In the circumstances, the enforcement wing officer could not embark upon a fresh inspection or demonstration exercise in aid of proposed assessment.

Conclusion: The impugned communication was not sustainable and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

---