TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (5) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ITO by admitting fresh evidence without affording any opportunity to the ITO to scrutinise the evidence. ?" 2. The question has arisen in the following manner. The registration was refused on the ground that the partnership was invalid, as Prem Chand, one of the partners, was a minor on the date of the partnership, i.e. 18th Oct., 1967. The ITO had asked for proof of the age of Prem Chand by filing a certificate but an affidavit of Bhakhtawari Devi wife of Shri Girdhari Lal, mother of Prem Chand, was filed showing that he was born in December, 1949. Accepting this affidavit, the ITO held that Prem Chand was minor and accordingly the registration was refused. 3. On appeal an affidavit of Shri Girdhari Lal, father of Prem Chand wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is evidence, Furthermore, a notice of the appeal must have gone to the ITO and he was also represented before the Tribunal. Assuming that the ITO was not present on the date of hearing before the AAC and could not rebut the evidence, it was open to the ITO to bring the necessary facts before the Tribunal at the time of the hearing of the second appeal. 5. This matter is really a simple one in terms of procedure. The AAC hears an appeal after giving a notice of the ITO. The AAC has power while deciding an appeal to make a further enquiry himself or to direct the ITO to make a further enquiry and make a report. This is provided under sub-s. (4) of s. 250. The AAC made the enquiry himself in the sense that he took the evidence. So, the questi....