MEDA RAMAIAH SETTY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law which the Appellate Tribunal was directed by this court to refer under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, reads :

(2.) TWO contentions were raised by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. One was that the yield of the groundnut kernel was wrongly estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at 72.5 per cent. as against the disclosed yield of 70 per cent. The other was that the yield of groundnut oil was wrongly estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at 42 per cent. whereas the disclosed yield was 35 per cent. according to the assessee. In the application presented for a reference under section 66(1) the question which the assessee wanted to be referred to this court was whether the order of the Tribunal was in accordance with law.

(3.) WE are of the opinion that this submission made by Mr. Srinivasan is unanswerable. The Tribunal did not, as required by law, of which there was an elucidation by the Supreme Court, discuss the evidence upon which the assessee depended, or refer to the material upon which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied for reaching the conclusion that the yield of the kernel was 72.5 per cent. Likewise, although the Tribunal did say that some comparable cases supported the conclusion reached by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the yield of oil, it did not discuss the evidence on which the assessee depended for supporting the disclosed yield of 35 per cent. The order of the Tribunal does not disclose that were the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee before it and what were the reasons for not accepting those argument and why and for what reason the Tribunal agreed with the conclusions reached by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.