9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 198 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision u/s 11(1) - Conduction of surveys - Discrepancies were found in the books of account AO made additions which was reduced by the first appellate authority to some extent - Held that - In the absence of the books of accounts, the A.O. was having no option except to made the addition on estimate basis. The First Appellate Authority has also made the addition on estimate basis and reduced the Tax liability but the Tribunal again enhanced the tax liability by making a fresh estimation. Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Kamla Ganpati vs. Controller of Estate Duty, 2001 (2) TMI 132 - Supreme Court Thus, it is clear that no question of law is emerging from the impugned order passed by Tribunal. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Order is hereby sustained.
Issues: Revisions filed under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the judgment of the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal for multiple assessment years.
Analysis: The case involved revisions filed by the assessee under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the consolidated judgment and order passed by the U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal for various assessment years. The assessee, a proprietorship firm dealing in Sweets, Namkin, Chat, Kheer, Milk, claimed that the sales were below the taxable limit for the assessment year 2001-02. However, a survey revealed that the assessee was not maintaining proper books of accounts, leading to the rejection of the books and addition of tax liability on an estimate basis by the Assessing Officer. The First Appellate Authority partially reduced the addition but the Tribunal further enhanced the turnover and tax liability, resulting in the assessee filing the present revisions. The counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal's decision to enhance the turnover and tax was unsustainable in law, citing precedents where matters were remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The counsel emphasized the relevance of an assessee's past history in estimating turnover and asserted that the books of accounts were accepted for both past and future purposes. On the contrary, the Standing Counsel for the revenue department supported the Tribunal's order. The High Court, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, noted that the survey revealed discrepancies in the assessee's operations, including the absence of proper books of accounts and undisclosed sales such as coffee service. The Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority had already made additions on an estimate basis, with the Tribunal further increasing the tax liability through fresh estimation. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and referenced legal precedents supporting the concept of estimation as a question of fact. Based on established legal principles and precedents, the High Court concluded that no legal issues arose from the Tribunal's order, thereby upholding the decision and dismissing all revisions without any costs. The judgment underscored the importance of factual findings and the Tribunal's authority in making estimations, ultimately affirming the Tribunal's order in the absence of any legal grounds for interference.
|
