1986 (5) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 251(2) was issued for hearing on March 31, 1975, was not a valid concession ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the case to his file for a fresh decision after furnishing an opportunity to the assessee ? " This reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee is an " individual " and undertakes tube-well sinking contracts. For the year in question, the assessee filed his return. In terms of the return, the Income-tax Officer applied 10% gross profit rate on the total receipts of the assessee. The total receipts, according to the Income-tax Officer, were Rs. 3,26,874. Assessment was done acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00. Your representatives admitted before me in writing that you had no other source of income. Please show cause why your income be not enhanced by making suitable addition in respect of household expenses incurred by you during the previous year under review. The reply to this notice should be submitted on 31st of March, 1975, at 11 a.m." After the notice had been served, the appeal was taken up for hearing on March 26, 1975, although the date mentioned in the notice was March 31, 1975. It appears that on March 26, 1975, the counsel for the assessee could not meet the situations created by the certificates granted by the two executive engineers. Counsel, therefore, conceded that an addition was called for on account of wrong statements ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R 1949 Pat, 197, which is a Division Bench decision of this court, may be made. There can be no doubt that a concession on a question of fact binds a party. But the real question in this case is whether, in the instant case, the matter could have been taken up for hearing on March 26, 1975, and whether the counsel for the assessee should have been allowed to make a concession on facts on that date. We have not the least doubt in observing that when the assessee had been called upon to show cause on March 31, 1975, at 11 a.m., the matter should not have been taken up on March 26, 1975. One does not know whether the counsel had been instructed by the date on which the matter had been taken up for hearing. Assuming that the party had instructe....