Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PURAN SUGAR WORKS VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Court Name: Allahabad High Court Judge(s): B. P. Jeevan Reddy, R. A. Sharma Title: PURAN SUGAR WORKS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Case No.: Income-tax Application No,189 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1990-07-11 Reported As: 1992 PTD 869 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ.---Having heard counsel for both the parties, we direct the Tribunal to state the following two questions, namely, questions Nos.1 and 2, out of the questions suggested by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were attracted to the facts of the case, even though no such finding had been recorded in the assessment order, nor was any such ground taken in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal? (2) Without prejudice to the above and, in the alternative, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that in the absence of maintenance of day-to-day stock records for each stage of production, the books of account were liable to be rejected and the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act were to be applied?" ' It is agreed by the assessee's counsel that questions Nos.3 to 7 were merely argumentative and that it is enough if questions Nos.1 and 2 are referred. ' The income-tax appeal is allowed in part and the Tribunal is directed to state the abovementioned two questions.
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.