TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (4) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. As a consequence, the Income-tax officer made a best judgment assessment by estimate. Being aggrieved by the ex parte orders, the assessee filed applications under section 27 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for all the six years in question. An affidavit of one Sri Krishujanuj Sahai Edoliya was filed on behalf of the assessee. It was averred that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the return under section 34(1A)/22(2) of the Act and also that the assessee did not comply with the terms of the notice under section 22(4) inasmuch as the assessee in its letter dated 16th August, 1960, and 29th August, 1960, asked the Income-tax Officer to stay proceedings in view of the fact that proceedings in some cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enquiring into the allegations made by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner summoned Mr. K.S. Edoliya and after cross-examining him and considering his testimony came to the conclusion that the averments made by him that the Income-tax Officer had told him that he would be going to Delhi for consultation with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and that he would inform Mr. K. S. Edoliya about the position after his return from Delhi were incorrect. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accordingly held that the assessee had failed to comply with the notice under section 22(4) of the Act as also committed default without sufficient cause in not filing a return as required under section 34(1A)/22(2) of the Act. In this view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch as it could not be held with certainty that the Income-tax Officer was at Kanpur on August 31, 1960. However, in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Segu Buchiah Setty, he held that inasmuch as the assessee had not been able to explain each of the two defaults committed under section 22(4) of the Act, the assessments in question were justified. The Accountant Member held that the assessee had committed default on both counts, viz., under section 34(1A) read with section 22(2) of the Act and also under section 22(4) of the Act. Inasmuch as the Bench had differed on the question as to whether the assessee had committed default under section 22(4) of the Act, the question arises as ....