ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. PONKUNNAM TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the Additional Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (the revenue); and the respondent, Ponkunnam Traders, a firm, is the assessee. THE judgment under appeal is reported as Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, 1972 83 ITR 508 Ker. Since the question involved is fairly simple, we do not propose to state the facts of the case in any detail. THE skeleton facts necessary are that the respondent's accounts having been rejected by the Income-tax Officer, the respondent was assessed on the best judgment method without being told what materials were being used against it for such assessment. THE respondent took objection in the writ petition filed by it that such assessment without giving it an opportunity to explain was to be quashed. THE single judge accepted the contention and allowed the writ petition ; and the appeal is against that.

(2.) WE may just refer to one or two observations from the judgment of the single judge, which would make the position clear. The learned judge has stated in paragraph 3 of his judgment:

(3.) BEFORE us, the question has been raised by the counsel for the revenue in a slightly different fashion : the counsel does not attack the reasoning of the single judge pointed out above. BEFORE we go to this aspect, we shall briefly refer to the provisions of the Act which we will have to consider in deciding the question. Section 142 of the Act of 1961 provides for enquiry before assessment; and Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the section read: