9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 144 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of assessment - Whether the Tribunal is correct in accepting the books of accounts of the dealer/assessee at the time of hearing of appeal when the same was not produced before the Assessing Authority for passing order of assessment? - Held that - Appellate Authority and Tribunal are the final fact finding authorities and when the books of accounts were produced, the Appellate Authority has analysed the same. Turnover is found in the books of accounts. Both the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have properly analysed the facts and evidence and accordingly answered the issues in favour of the assessee. There is no perversity in the finding. Revision dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of books of accounts by the Tribunal. 2. Non-production of accounts before the Assessing Authority. 3. Retraction of the dealer's statement. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Acceptance of Books of Accounts by the Tribunal: The main issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in accepting the dealer's books of accounts during the appeal when these were not produced before the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal, upon review, found that the books of accounts were indeed produced and verified during the appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, noted that the purchases from Hong Kong were accounted for in the year 2000-01, not 2001-02, as verified from the purchase ledger and other records. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s decision, confirming that the purchases were duly recorded and dismissing the State's appeal. 2. Non-production of Accounts Before the Assessing Authority: The State argued that the dealer did not produce the books of account before the Assessing Officer, which led to the revision of the assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the accounts were produced during the appeal and verified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The records showed that the purchases were accounted for in the year 2000-01, and the alleged suppression was not valid. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner correctly set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer, as the purchases were duly recorded in the books. 3. Retraction of the Dealer's Statement: The State contended that the Tribunal erred in admitting the retraction of the dealer's statement made during the inspection on 05.09.2001, where the dealer had admitted to the suppression and paid the tax voluntarily. The Tribunal, however, found that the inspection report and the books of accounts did not support the State's claim of suppression. The Tribunal noted that the dealer's accounts for the year 2000-01 were completed before the inspection date, and the alleged suppressed turnover was accounted for in the books. The Tribunal dismissed the State's appeal, stating that the facts admitted before the inspecting official could not be rebutted subsequently. Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, had correctly analyzed the facts and evidence, finding no suppression of turnover. The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner’s decision to set aside the addition and penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no perversity in the findings and concluded that there was no substantial question of law warranting the reversal of the impugned order. Consequently, the Tax Case Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs.
|
