TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1953 (12) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment. The assessee in this case is one Mohammad Ishaq who is carrying on business in Sadar Bazar at Delhi. On the 11th August, 1949, he appeared before the Income-tax Officer, Delhi, and submitted returns in respect of his income for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49. The Income-tax Officer recorded his statement and served him with a notice under section 23(2) of the Act requiring him to produce immediately the evidence on which he relied in support of the returns. The latter asked for time to produce his evidence and the case was accordingly adjourned to the 8th October, 1949. On the 10th October, 1949, Mr. Pardhuman Kumar, counsel for the assessee, appeared before the Income-tax Officer and stated that the assessee had to leave suddenly f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence under sections 22(4) and 23(2) of the Income-tax Act and (b) of rebutting the conjectures and allegations of the Income-tax Officer which were based on the so-called enquiries but regarding which no information whatever was imparted to the assessee himself. The Tribunal held that the assessments for the years 1944 to 1947 were of jurisdiction, that the income from tin scrap business should be computed at Rs. 50,000 for the year 1947-48 and Rs. 100,000 for the year 1948-49 and that the income for the year 1949-50 had been correctly assessed. In the result therefore the appeals against the 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 assessments were allowed in toto, the appeals against the 1947-48 and 1948-49 assessments were allowed protanto and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee but declined to refer the question which has been reproduced above. Early in September, 1952, the assessee presented to this Court three separate applications under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act relating to the years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 in which he requested that the Appellate Tribunal be asked to state to this Court all the five questions of law which were formulated by him. When the case came up for hearing, however, the learned counsel for the assessee wished us only to request the Tribunal to state whether in the circumstances of the case the assessments were made without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rebut the assumptions of the Income-tax Officer and if so whether the said assessments are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention that his client has not had a fair deal. He appeared before the Income-tax Officer on the 11th August, 1949, and was served with a notice under section 23(2) requiring him to produce immediately any evidence on which he relied in support of his returns. He could not possibly comply with the requisition at a moment's notice and asked for a short adjournment. The Income-tax Officer acceded to his request and directed him to produce the evidence on the 8th October, 1949. The assessee, it is contended, would have produced his evidence on that day had it not been for the fact that on that day his daughter was taken suddenly ill and had to be taken immediately to Bombay. Notwithstanding the predicament in which he found hims....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was not faced with the assumptions of the Income-tax Officer and was not afforded an opportunity to explain the transactions which he had with the factories concerned. There is, in my opinion, considerable force in the arguments which have been addressed to us on behalf of the assessee. I am particularly impressed with the contention that it was not possible for the assessee to produce his books of account on the 14th October when the notice requiring him to do so was issued only a day before. As pointed out by Rankin, C.J., in in the matter of Sadaram Puranchand [1931] 5 I.T.C. 459; A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 729, the question whether an assessee was given reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in support of the return and whether the time ....