NEW AMIR IRON WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Bagadia placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Beharilal Ramcharan v.Income Tax Officer, Spl. Circle 'B' Ward, Kanpurand Anr., reported in (1981) 1311.T.R. 29 and submitted that it was the duly of PRO to follow the guidelines given by the Supreme Court by its observations in the judgment of Beharilal's case (supra). SHRI Bagadia submitted that learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration these observations which are binding on every Court and every judicial and quasi-judicial authority. He submitted that on account of this omission on the important aspect the judgment which has been pronounced by the learned Single Judge will have to be treated as incorrect and illegal. He submitted that it be set-aside by passing appropriate judgment and order.

(2.) SHRI Patankar vehemently opposed the submissions of SHRI Bagadia and submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the observations of the Supreme Court in Beharilal's case (supra) and has come to a right conclusion after adverting its attention to necessary facets of the case. He submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellants and, therefore, it cannot lie in its mouth to say that there has been failure of justice and he has been unnecessarily put to liability of paying the tax and resultant consequences. He submitted that appeal be dismissed. A short point stands for adjudication and, therefore, with the concurrence of the parties it has been decided finally at motion hearing stage.

(3.) WHILE justifying the judgment and order which is being assailed, Shri Patankar pointed out Paragraphs 7, 10 and 11 of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. In Paragraph 7, the learned Judge has pointed out the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Biharilal (supra) as reliance was placed on the said judgment by the appellants and attention of the learned Single Judge was invited to these observations of the Supreme Court. However, by hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue, the learned Judge concluded that "If one examines the proceedings initiated by the Revenue against the petitioner under Section 226 (3), which eventually culminated in the impugned order dated 10-3-99, it is clearly descernable that Revenue discharged its factual burden by holding that an affidavit filed by the petitioner is false or/and not true. More that is required to be proved by the Tax Recovery Officer under Section 226 (vi) is that the statement made on oath by the person to whom the notice is served under Section 226 (3) is false in any material particulars. Once this material is proved, then it follows that such person becomes personally liable to the extent of his own liability to the assessee or to the extent of the assessee's liability for any sum due under the Act whichever is less."