9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (4) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cularly when the assessment is related to suppression of purchases or sales?" The second question has been referred at the instance of the assessee and is as follows: "(2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the estimate of Rs. 1,00,000 was made on a reasonable basis?" 2.. The assessee is a general merchant. He submitted a return showing a gross sale of Rs. 58,633 and 11 annas. The Sales Tax Officer got information that the gross sales returned by the assessee had been substantially minimised. A consignment of seven packages was, however, caught by the flying squad and on enquiry it was found that the value of those seven packages was about Rs. 25,000. The assessee was required to explain why he had shown the value of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cealed according to section 43(1)." We are unable to agree with this line of reasoning by the Board of Revenue. Section 43(1) which authorises the imposition of penalty does not require that the actual amount of turnover concealed on which tax should have been paid, must be found on the basis of accounts and documents produced before the assessing officer and only then a penalty can be imposed. The relevant part of section 43(1) is as follows: "If the Commissioner or the appellate authority in the course of any proceeding under this Act, is satisfied that a dealer has concealed his turnover or aggregate of the amount of purchase prices in respect of any goods or furnished a false return, the Commissioner or the appellate authority, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and not in a case where the tax has been imposed on the basis of best judgment assessment. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the opinion of the Board of Revenue and are of the view that the first question must be answered in the affirmative (against the assessee). 3.. As regards the second question, on the data given, it is not possible to say that the assessment of the turnover at Rs. 1,00,000 was so unreasonable as to call for interference. The assessee himself had shown his turnover at more than Rs. 50,000. Only one detected item indicated that he had concealed the turnover worth about Rs. 25,000. In such a case, increasing the turnover by a total amount of Rs. 50,000 from what had been returned by the assessee cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
