JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench in ITA 26/PNJ/2001 dt.23.11.01 raising the following substantial question of law: 1) Whether the single Member of the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the appeal when the subject matter of the appeal was exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2) Whether Tribunal was justified in reversing the findings of the appellate Commissioner when the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act? 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of edible oil. For the assessment year 96-97 the assessee filed a return of income on 17.1.96 declaring an income Rs. 8,660/-. The same was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Act. Thereafter the matter was taken up for scrutiny. After scrutinizing the account maintained by the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 30th March 1999 computing the total income of Rs. 2,27,614/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum after examining the matter, noticed that the assessee had failed to explain the cash credit of Rs. 13,18,795/- and therefore enhanced the income from Rs. 2,27,614/- to Rs. 13,89,795/-. Accordingly the assessee was called upon to pay the tax. 4. Aggrieved by the orders, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench. The matter was heard by a single Member of the Bench. After considering the entire matter and having found that the assessee’s statement was accepted by the Assessing Officer and that the assessee was willing to produce the evidence as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, to show that he had availed the loan from various agriculturists and the Income Tax appellate Commissioner without there being any evidence had reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the revenue. 5. Mr. Sheshachala, the learned Counsel for the revenue contends that in view of specific provision under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, when the subject matter of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was more than Rs. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the revenue. 5. Mr. Sheshachala, the learned Counsel for the revenue contends that in view of specific provision under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, when the subject matter of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was more than Rs. 5,00,000/- a single Member of the Tribunal could not have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits. According to him, the Assessing Officer had passed an order computing the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,27,614/-. On an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax exercising his powers under Section 251(2) of the Act had enhanced the tax payable by the assessee and enhanced the same to Rs. 13,89,795/-. Therefore a learned Member of the Tribunal should not have heard and disposed of the appeal when he had no power to adjudicate the appeal which exceeded Rs. 5,00,000/-. In the circumstances he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by directing the Tribunal to hear the matter by two members. He alternatively contends that the Tribunal without examining the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has reversed the findings of the appellate Commissioner. According to him, the assessee had failed to explain the loan raised by him from various persons amounting to Rs. 13,18,795/- and the name of the creditors are all fictitious and that the assessee had submitted before the Commissioner of Appeals that he was unable to examine his creditors. Therefore he contends the Tribunal was not justified in reversing the findings of the Commissioner of appeals. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal answering the questions of law in favour of the revenue. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that a single Member of the Tribunal has jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal on merits considering that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was less than Rs. 5,00,000/- and a single Member of the Tribunal would get jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal on merits based on the computation of income by the Assessing Officer and not on the income computed by the Commissioner of appeals. 5,00,000/- and a single Member of the Tribunal would get jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal on merits based on the computation of income by the Assessing Officer and not on the income computed by the Commissioner of appeals. By stressing the word, “Assessing Officer” used in Sub-section (3) of Section 255 of the Income Tax Act, he submits that what is required to be considered by this Court; in order to hold that a single member of the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal on merits was the computation of income by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, he requests this Court to reject the contention urged by the revenue. 7. In regard to point No. 2, Sri. Parthasarathi, contends that the Tribunal has given its finding that before the Commissioner of appeals the assessee was willing to let in oral evidence to prove the loan raised by it from various agriculturists. Though such a statement was available in the records, the Commissioner of appeals contrary to the documentary evidence had given a finding to the effect that the assessee was not willing to prove the burden cast upon hint under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal having found that the findings of the Commissioner of appeals was contrary to the documentary evidence and the statement made by the assessee has rightly reversed the findings of the Commissioner of appeals. Therefore, he contends that no error has been committed by the Member of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. Considering the rival contentions, what is required to be considered by us in this appeal is whether Rs. 5,00,000/- to be computed in order to decide the jurisdiction of a single member of the Tribunal was the income computed by the Assessing Officer or on the findings of the Commissioner of appeals. In other words, whether the jurisdiction of the single member of the Tribunal has to be decided based on the computation of income by the Assessing Officer or on the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. 9. In other words, whether the jurisdiction of the single member of the Tribunal has to be decided based on the computation of income by the Assessing Officer or on the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Section 255 of the Income Tax Act reads as hereunder: 255 (1) The powers and functions of the Appellate Tribunal may be exercised and discharged by Benches constituted by the President of the Appellate Tribunal from among the members thereof (2) Subject to the provisions contained in Sub-section (3), Bench shall consist of one judicial member and one accountant member (3) The President or any other member of the Appellate Tribunal authorised in this behalf by the Central Govt. may, sitting singly, dispose of any case which has been allotted to the Bench of which he is a member and which pertains to an assessee whose total income as computed by Assessing Officer on the case does not exceed (five hundred thousand rupees) and the President may, for the disposal of any particular case constitute a Special Bench consisting of three or more members, one of whom shall necessarily be a judicial member and one an accountant member. 10. In Sub-section (3) of Section 255, the word used is total income as computed by the Assessing Officer in the case does not exceed five hundred thousand rupees. By considering the word Assessing Officer, we have to consider whether the order passed by the Commissioner of appeal has to be construed as an order passed by Assessing Officer or by an Appellate authority. The word, Assessing Officer is defined under Section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act which reads as hereunder: “Assessing Officer” means the Asst. Commissioner (or Deputy Commissioner)) or Asst. Director) (or Deputy Director) or the Income-tax Officer who is vested with the relevant jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 120 or any other provision of this Act, and the (Additional Commissioner or) (Additional Director or) (Jt. Commissioner or Jt. Director) who is directed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on or assigned to an Assessing Officer under this Act. 11. Commissioner or Jt. Director) who is directed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on or assigned to an Assessing Officer under this Act. 11. From the definition of Assessing Officer, we cannot come to the conclusion that if the income computed by the Assessing Officer is enhanced by the Commissioner of appeals, the said order has to be treated as an order passed by an Assessing Officer. It has to be treated as an order passed by the appellate authority and not by the original authority. 12. We would have appreciated the arguments of the revenue, provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 255 of the Act instead of using the word, “Assessing Officer” the total income as computed in the case does not exceed Five hundred thousand rupees. But unfortunately, the said word is missing. When the legislature in their wisdom have used the word “Assessing Officer”, we cannot take a different view than that of the plain reading of the section. When the word, “Assessing Officer” is used in Section 255, we cannot hold the orders of the appellate authority as an order of the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, point No. 1 has to be held against the revenue. Accordingly, we answer the question No. 1 against the revenue and we hold that a single Member of the Tribunal can exercise his power if the income computed by the Assessing Officer is less than Rs. 5,00,000/- even though the same has been enhanced by the Commissioner of appeals in excess of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 13. In regard to question No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the assessee was willing to examine the creditors as its witnesses to prove that it has availed loan from them and even though such a categorical finding has been given by the Tribunal, for the reasons best known to the revenue; no records are produced before us to show that the assessee had not made such a statement either before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of appeals. When the revenue has got the records to show whether the assessee was willing to examine any of the witnesses or not, when such documents are not placed before the Court, we have to draw an adverse inference against the revenue. 14. When the revenue has got the records to show whether the assessee was willing to examine any of the witnesses or not, when such documents are not placed before the Court, we have to draw an adverse inference against the revenue. 14. In the circumstances, we do not see any illegality committed by the Tribunal in reversing the findings of the Commissioner of appeals. Accordingly, we answer the question No. 2 against the revenue. 15. In the result, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.