SIYA NAND GOLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the CIT whereby he has declined to exercise his revisional jurisdiction under s. 264 of the Act and upheld the order of assessment made against the petitioner. The facts giving rise to the petition lie in a narrow compass and may, therefore, be set out as under :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of assessment made by the AO proceeded entirely on the basis of the alleged surrender made by the petitioner. No such surrender was, according to the learned counsel, made at any stage nor could any such surrender be read in the signatures which the AO had obtained on the margin of the order - sheet. It was also contended that the AO as also the CIT had fallen in error in holding that the responses received from Aero Enterprises and Mohan Chemicals were in any way contradictory hence unreliable. The CIT had, according to the counsel for the petitioner, failed to exercise his jurisdiction thereby rendering the order made by him liable to be set aside.

(3.) MR . Jolly, counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the jurisdiction of the CIT under s. 264 and so also that of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution was limited to finding out whether there was any error of jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned order. He urged that the CIT had, on evaluation of the material on record, come to the conclusion that there was a surrender made by the assessee and that the said finding could not be interpreted with by us under Art. 226.