TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of tea, Petitioner No.2 is the principal officer of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is an income-tax assessee and at all material times had and still has been maintaining its accounts from April 1 of each year up to March 31, of the next year, i.e., the previous year under section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it was prevailing at that time), applicable to petitioner No.1 assessee-company was from April 1 to March 31. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that in the year 1983-84 at the time of preparing and finalising the accounts of the petitioner-company it was ascertained that at the end of March a substantial quantity of tea remained unsold and as such the said unsold tea had to be valued at estimated price for the purpos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t conferred upon the Income-tax Officer is a discretionary one but this has to be exercised judicially. Upon a true and proper interpretation of the said section it would emerge that according consent is a rule and refusal is an exception, however, such consent can always be given on certain terms and conditions which may be imposed to protect the Revenue. In this case, he contends, that the petitioner all the time was and still is willing to make good any loss of revenue and on the basis of this undertaking the consent should have been given. In fact, he has drawn my attention to the reason for refusal in giving. consent by the respective authorities and submits that if the loss which might be suffered by the Revenue is made good, there ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the two orders as well as from the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition that the reason for refusal to give consent is that the Revenue will be suffering loss. Upon a careful examination of the order of the Revising Officer it appears to me that he has merely accepted mechanically the order of the Income-tax Officer without Applying his own mind. He has not examined on the subsequent development whether the consent could have been given or not. In the course of hearing of the revision application it was specifically stated by the petitioner assessee that it was ready to give and indeed gave an undertaking that the loss which might result in change would be made good, however, he did not accept this undertaking. In my view, he had fal....