CTO, CIRCLE-A, SRIGANGANAGAR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL & ANR. & ALONG WITH CONNECTED 9 REVISION PETITIONS (SEE SCHEDULE-A)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has filed these revision petitions against the order of the Tax Board, Ajmer dated 23.09.2008 passed in 14 appeals, whereby the appeals filed by the Assessee/s Pawan Kumar Agarwal and Subhash Chand, were allowed, and the Tax Board held that the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Bikaner dated 02.06.2004 remanding the case back to the Assessing Authority was illegal since it was a second remand by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals); and the Assessing Authority had failed to pass appropriate assessment order after due enquiry in pursuance of earlier remand order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.08.1999.

(2.) The case appears to have a chequered history of the assessments including best judgment assesment and remands by the appellate authorities in assessment proceedings against one firm known as 'M/s Mamraj Jagdish Kumar, 354, Vinoba Basti, Sriganganagar' for assessment year 1994-95 (01.04.1994 to 31.03.1995). The Assessing Authority found that real persons behind the persons, who were said to be running the said partnership firm, were different and included S/Sh. Pawan Kumar Agarwal S/o Mohan Lal, and Subhash Chand S/o Pratap Singh. The enquries made by the Assessing Authority also resulted in certain reports by the different officials of the Commercial Taxes Department that some more persons were behind the said concern known as M/s Mamraj Jagdish Kumar. Earlier, the assessment order dated 27.03.1997 was challenged before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by which the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case back vide the order dated 13.08.1999 to the Assessing Authority. Upon such remand, a fresh assessment order was passed by the Assessing Authority for the said period on 08.02.2002 vide Annex-1 and in the said best judgment assessment, determining the taxable turnover of the said firm at Rs. 3 crores, a demand of Rs. 42,45,020/- was raised against the Assessee for which various persons were held liable to pay as named in the said order as they were found to be the real partners and ten such names have been given at page 2 of the assessment order like Jagdish Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Chandan Singh, M/s Sohan Lal Rakesh Kumar, M/s Bhakhda Agro Industries, Pawan Kumar Gawdia, Anil Kumar, Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Subhash Chand and Kishan Kumar etc.

(3.) These persons challenged the said assessment order dated 08.02.2002 before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), again who vide his order dated 02.06.2004 partly allowed these 14 appeals and again remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority as the said appellate authority felt that the Assessing Authority had not fully complied with the directions given in the earlier remand order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.08.1999. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 02.06.2004 is Annex-2 in the present revision petition.