9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (6) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 33,953.00 respectively. Before the assessment for asst. yr. 1973-74 was taken up an inspection of the appellant s premises had revealed records showing suppressed purchased and sales. The assessing authority made additions by way of revision for the first three assessments and in the course of original assessment itself for the last year. For the last year, the appellant had reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 16,413.49. The assessing authority considered the purchase omissions and added 25 per cent gross profit to arrive at the sales omission. He also made separate addition for sales omission discovered and make some small additions for further possible omissions. The additions disputed for all these years work out to Rs. 870 for asst. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and resort to best judgment assessment under s. 12 of the Act the asst. yr. 1973-74. The claim that it is mere jottings or that the transactions mentioned therein were already accounted has been found to be clearly wrong. After going through the records, we are satisfied that there are clear omissions justifying additions revision. No doubt, separate additions have been made for purchase suppressions and sales suppressions. But they are usually of different varieties of goods. Besides, all that we are concerned is the reasonableness of the addition with reference to the materials found. Considering that the appellant has consistently kept the transactions both the purchases and sales outside the accounts, we are not in a position to say tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is ample evidence of exercise of the mind of assessing authority toward the facts of the case and that the finding though not expressed in clear items is clearly available when the entire records are considered and the use of the word "suppression" is found. Under these circumstances there is jurisdiction to levy penalty. We also find that the systematic non-accounting of numerous transactions clearly shows wilfulness on appellant s part. Hence, penalty is justified even on merits. However, penalty at 100 per cent had been confirmed. Considering that all the four assessments are the results of a single inspection and that there is no record of past misconduct, the penalty at 50 per cent as is usually considered reasonable in suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
