1967 (4) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect of either business, the Income-tax officer estimated the income from each source, in respect of each assessment year, taking a net profit of 30 per cent. before allowance for depreciation in respect of the cinema business and a net profit of 12 1/2 per cent. in respect of the labour contract business, and made the several assessments. The income so assessed was Rs. 27,733 tor the assessment year 1958-59, Rs. 6,100 for the assessment year 1939-60, Rs. 40,322 for the assessment year 1960-61, Rs. 20,262 for the assessment year 1961-62, and Rs. 28,595 for the assessment year 1962-63. The petitioner challenged the assessments in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the contention o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....idavit and written arguments thereafter before the Commissioner. He also applied for a personal hearing. On May 11, 1966, the Commissioner disposed of the revision applications by a common order. After considering that rates applied by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he observed : " I have carefully gone through the contentions raised by the assessee in the revision petitions as well as in the written arguments submitted thereafter. Having regard to all the facts of the case, the nature and the extent of the petitioner's business, I am of the opinion that the estimate of income as adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is somewhat excessive. I would allow the following further reductions in the t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on May 10, 1966 and I referred to the decision of this court in V. C. Maheshwari v. State of U. P. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders are invalid because no opportunity was given by the Commissioner to the petitioner to be heard personally must be rejected. The other contention of the petitioner is that the Commissioner relied upon material prejudicial to the petitioner without an opportunity to the petitioner to meet it. Upon a perusal of the impugned orders there is nothing to show that the Commissioner relied upon material which was prejudical to the petitioner and which the had had no opportunity earlier to meet. The petitioner then says that the orders are arbitrary and do not disclose the re....