TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Admit. The following substantial question of law arises for determination: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal can be said to have been made in accordance with law and is not perverse when the decision reverses the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without giving any reasons?" Notice was issued on December 6, 2004, in the light of the ratio of the decisions of this court reported in-(i) Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 541; (ii) Mercury Metals P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 297 and (iii) Rameshchandra M. Luthra v. Asst. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 460. Thereafter, on December 30, 2004, the appellant was directed to file the paper book which was submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt the Assessing Officer disbelieved the explanation tendered by the assessee-company vide letter dated March 15, 1991, whereunder the aforesaid admission/disclosure made by the director was retracted. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who, for the reasons stated in his order dated February 1,1996, granted partial relief to the extent of a sum of Rs. 11,45,368 in relation to six octroi receipts while confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 34,902 in relation to the seventh octroi receipt. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while framing the order has extensively referred to the evidence produced before him by the assessee in the form of two paper books. Both the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....do so, the order was vitiated in law and was thus a perverse order. It was, therefore, urged that the matter be restored to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence which was available on record. Mr. Bhatt, for the respondent-Revenue, submitted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the fact that the retraction was made after 38 days of the statement recorded during the course of search and that the explanation tendered before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not been furnished before the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that the Tribunal had not accepted the explanation of the assessee that only the director who was out of station was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at all the entries of the purchases reflected by the octroi receipts were debited in the books of account except for the difference in quantity mentioned in one of the bills. The Assessing Officer having rejected this explanation the assessee carried the matter in appeal and reiterated its explanation. However, the assessee to buttress its submission, filed two paper books before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It is an admitted fact that copies of the paper books were forwarded to the Assessing Officer whose comments were received by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide letter No. ACIT/Co.Cir.7(l)/Appeal/1995-96 dated October 6, 1995. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has taken into consideration the explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of survey and that the statement was voluntarily made without any threat or coercion; (iv) search is generally conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses and the assessee had failed to obtain any statement from any witness that there was any illegality/irregularity in the search or recording of statement of Shri Narendrabhai Patel; (v) that it was unbelievable that the facts pertaining to seven octroi bills were in the knowledge of the director who was out of station. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the basis of the admission made by Shri Narendrabhai Patel, the addition was rightly made by the Assessing Officer but wrongly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The legal position is well-estab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in paragraph No. 2.1 of his order has categorically recorded that the said evidence in the form of paper books was forwarded to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer had after perusing the same offered his comments vide letter dated October 6, 1995. This is just an instance of the modality, i.e., the cursoriness with which the Tribunal has dealt with the issue. In 1959 the apex court had observed that if the Tribunal arrives at its own conclusion of fact after due consideration of evidence before it the court will not interfere, but for this purpose it was necessary that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have gi....