Guwahati Court August 1985 Judgments

Wealth-tax Officer Vs. R.K. Bhattacharjee

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Guwahati

Reported in: (1986)15ITD503(Gau.)

1. As all these appeals filed by the revenue arise out of the consolidated order dated 15-2-1983 passed by the AAC and give rise to a common issue, they were heard together and for the sake of convenience, are being disposed of by this single order.2. The assessee applied for adjournment on the ground of his illness.The prayer is not supported by a medical certificate or any other material. We, therefore, refuse the prayer for adjournment. Moreover, we do not find it necessary to adjourn the hearing of the appeals. At the time of hearing of the appeals none put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. The appeals were, therefore, heard ex parte and have to be disposed of on the basis of submissions made on behalf of the revenue and the materials available on record.3. The assessee is an individual. The assessment years involved are 1968-69 to 1974-75. Shri B.B. Kundu, the learned departmental representative, stated before us that the assessee carries on bus iness as a contractor and t...

Mustt. Jubeda Khatun Vs. Sulaiman Khan

Court: Guwahati

Das, J. 1. This is an appeal under Clauses 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the First Appeal No. 57/69 of the appellant. The appellant was the defendant in Original Title Suit No. 22/65 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, a suit instituted by the present respondent for realisation of an amount of Rs. 19,800/- on account of a loan against a mortgage deed which was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.2. It is not necessary to narrate the plaintiff's case in details as the learned Single Judge has narrated the case of the plaintiff and the defendant respective as set out in the pleadings. However, to get the grip of the background and to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it would be convenient to put respectively cases of the parties in brief :The plaintiffs case is that the defendant No. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 24-5-57 from the plaintiff mortga...