2007 (11) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Tribunal was justified in reversing the findings of the Appellate Commissioner when the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof as required under section 68 of the Income-tax Act ?" 2 The assessee is a manufacturer of edible oil. For the assessment year1996-97, the assessee filed a return of income on January 17, 1996, declaring an income Rs.8,660. The same was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for scrutiny. After scrutinizing the account maintained by the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an order on March 30, 1999, computing the total income of Rs. 2,27,614. 3 Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2,27,614. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) exercising his powers under section 251(2) of the Act had enhanced the tax payable by the assessee and enhanced the same to Rs. 13,89,795, Therefore, a learned member of the Tribunal should not have heard and disposed of the appeal when he had no power to adjudicate the appeal which exceeded Rs. 5,00,000. In the circumstances he requests the court to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by directing the Tribunal to hear the matter by two members. He alternatively contends that the Tribunal without examining the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Sri Parthasarathi contends that the Tribunal has given its finding that before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee was willing to let in oral evidence to prove the loan raised by it from various agriculturists. Though such a statement was available in the records, the Commissioner (Appeals) contrary to the documentary evidence had given a finding to the effect that the assessee was not willing to prove the burden cast upon him under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal having found that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) was contrary to the documentary evidence and the statement made by the assessee has rightly reversed the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) Therefore, he contends that no error has been committed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne of whom shall necessarily be a judicial member and one an accountant member." 11 In sub-section (3) of section 255, the word used is total income as computed by the Assessing Officer in the case does not exceed five hundred thousand rupees. By considering the words "Assessing Officer", we have to consider whether the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be construed as an order passed by the Assessing Officer or by an appellate authority. The words "Assessing Officer" are defined under section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act which reads as hereunder : "Assessing Officer' means the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jur....