2012 (9) TMI 935 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Assessment based on stock variation, photocopies of sale bills, penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act.

Assessment based on Stock Variation:
The assessee, a dealer in pulses and grams, appealed against the order of the Joint Commissioner for the assessment year 1994-95. The inspection revealed discrepancies such as daily cash balance and totals struck in pencil, lack of separate sale bills for taxable and non-taxable goods, and stock variation in certain items. The assessing officer estimated turnover by adding four times the actual suppression, leading to penalty under section 12(3)(b). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found deficits in chillies and tamarind stock, but no dealings with tamarind by the assessee. The turnover was fixed at Rs. 7,145, with deletion of the four times addition and adoption of one time addition.

Photocopies of Sale Bills:
The first appellate authority reduced the penalty under section 12(3)(b), but the Joint Commissioner invoked suo motu proceedings to restore the assessment, claiming that the photocopies of sale bills were related to the assessee's business. However, the assessee argued that the slips were used for jottings by their son for a separate money lending business, not connected to the assessee's activities. The Joint Commissioner held a nexus between the slips and the assessee's business, but the High Court set aside this decision due to lack of conclusive evidence linking the slips to the assessee's transactions.

Penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act:
The Revenue contended that the slips belonged to the assessee, shifting the burden of proof. The Joint Commissioner emphasized the relevance of the slips to the assessee's business, leading to restoration of the assessment with modifications. However, the High Court found no clear link between the seized slips and the assessee's transactions, ultimately setting aside the Joint Commissioner's order and confirming the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, stating that there were no conclusive materials establishing the seized slips' connection to the assessee's transactions, thereby setting aside the Joint Commissioner's order and confirming the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.