1987 PLP rib (PTD)

Abdul Ghani Channa, D.R. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1987. These appeals are, directed against the consolidated order of learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner recorded by him on 20th January, 1983, relating to assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that during the relevant assessment years the appellant, an individual, derived his income from a Ration Shop declaring it at' Rs.11.641 in each assessment year, which was, however, raised by Income-tax Officer to Rs.15,000 and Rs.16,000 respectively. The Income-tax Officer had called for information from the Food Department during these relevant assessment years and it is the case of Mr. Channa that the appellant apprehending concealment proceeding agreed 'to assessed income at Rs.15,000 and ks.16.000 in each year respectively. However, the appellant felt aggrieved and came up in appeal but the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the I.-T.O. that he framed the assessments as per agreement of the appellant for both the assessment years. The appellant still feels aggrieved and has come up in second appeal before me.

2. Mr. Rehmat. Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that in assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 the appellant had declared his income at Rs.7,805, for each year which was, however, assessed at Rs. 12,250, Rs.12,300 and Rs.12,300 for each assessment year respectively. He further contended that during the relevant assessment year the total units for which the appellant had concealed the ration came down from 3,471 to 2,488 and thus the income was very much reduced. He further contended that the appellant appeared before the Income-tax Officer on the relevant date all alone as the Advocate had met with an accident. The learned counsel contended that the income-tax Officer directed the appellant to sign the Order Sheet and he complied with his direction without understanding the implication thereof. He vehemently argued that in view of reduced income the appellant could not have agreed to the higher income. The learned Departmental Representative, Mr. Channa, however, argued that the appellant fully understanding the implication of his signing the Order-Sheet affixed his signatures thereon and thus wanted to avoid the concealment proceedings. According to learned Departmental Representative the agreed assessment was very much binding on him.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as learned Departmental Representative. From perusal of the Order Sheet it appears that the appellant is uneducated person though he could not be called illiterate as he has signed the Order Sheet. It is true that the appellant himself has filed revised return for both the assessment years raising his income to Rs.11,641 against the declared income of Rs.3,432 However, it does not mean that he might have agreed to assessed income of Rs.15,000 and Rs.16,000 of each assessment year. From perusal of assessment orders it also appear that the Income-tax Officer had initiated proceeding under section 116(b) also. As such, he has not given any concession to the appellant. An agreed assessment is always a contract and a contract consists of not only an offer and acceptance but also of a consideration. Had the Income-tax officer in return of agreed assessment of Rs.15,000 and Rs.16,00C dropped the concealment proceeding, he might have done some favour to the appellant. However, in these appeals the appellant appear to have agreed to the higher income without receiving any return from the Income-tax Officer. As such, the agreed assessments appear to be unilateral, I, therefore, under facts and circumstances of these appeals, do not attach the sanctity of a contract to them. Consequently, I allow both these appeals and set aside the agreed assessment of both the assessment years together with the impugned order and direct the Income-tax Officer to frame afresh both the assessments according to law. M. B. A./415/T Order accordingly.