The following questions were before the High Court see 1996 220 ITR 277 , in a reference under Section 256 1 of the Income tax Act, 1961 page 278 Whether in view of the fact that Mohd.
Mohammad Rashid and Co., Jabalpur, was number summoned in evidence by the Income tax Officer, in spite of the request made by the applicant under Section 131, in this behalf, there is justification in law to use the evidence recorded behind the back of the applicant without affording an opportunity to him to cross examine the said Mohd.
Whether the assessment is vitiated in law as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Assessment has number given reasonable opportunity of being heard and failed in summoning the witnesses as requested under Section 131 and his failure to companysider the affidavit of Mohd.
Rashid filed along with the written reply submitted on December 31, 1985 ?
Rashid, proprietor of Mohd.
Rashid and drawing an adverse inference ?
