INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SANTOSH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of the aforementioned appeals, as common issues of law, based on similar facts, arise for consideration. Brief and relevant facts necessary for decision of the three tax appeals, as reflected from the records, are that the respondent assessee/respondent derived income from manufacturing and trading of iron and steel items i.e. M.S. Rods, angles, channels and M.S. Tar etc. under the trade name of M/s Tara Re-rolling Mill, Tedesara. Information was received from Asstt. Commr., Central Excise Tax, Bhilai that the assessee effected huge business transactions during the relevant accounting period, relevant assessment years being 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. According to sales-tax assessment orders, the turnover/sales during various assessment years were as below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_523_TLCHH0_2012_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Aggrieved by the orders of assessment and computation of income and initiation of penalty proceedings, the assessee filed separate appeals in each of the cases, containing similar grounds of appeal based on similar facts. The three appeals were dismissed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Raipur [in short "CIT (A)"]. Detailed order was passed in appeals arising out of orders of assessment of asst. yrs. 1993-94 on 10th July, 2003 and the appeals pertaining to asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96 were also dismissed recording that on similar grounds, appeals pertaining to asst. yr. 1993-94 has been dismissed.

(3.) The assessee thereafter preferred appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"). The assessee for the first time raised an issue with regard to legality and validity of the order of the AO in invoking jurisdiction and power under s. 147 of the Act, in addition to other grounds raised in the appeal.