9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (6) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver by Rs. 1,40,617.29. As a result of the said revision the net turnover on which the petitioners have been assessed was Rs. 3,19,867.24. As against the enhancement of the turnover by the revisional authority, there was an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. But the Tribunal upheld substantially the enhancement except as regards a small turnover of Rs. 4,400. Before us the petitioners question the enhancement made by the revisional authority not only on merits but also on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to invoke the power under section 32 of Madras Act 1 of 1959 in respect of the assessment year 1957-58 which is governed by Madras Act 9 of 1939. Taking up the question whether the enhancement by the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted as genuine in various other assessment proceedings which had been affirmed even by the High Court on more than one occasion. The Tribunal also found that the broker's account books have been maintained in the regular course of business and that some of the transactions recorded in the broker's accounts have found place in the assessee's account books and that there is no reason to hold that the other transactions referred to in the broker's account books did not really take place. The Tribunal also considered the broker's evidence and accepted the same. The Tribunal was not prepared to reject the evidence of the broker and the evidentiary value of the entries made in his accounts, in the light of the letters given by the dealers with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom the assessee was in the habit of making purchases, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the entries in Krishnaswami's accounts. It would have been easy for the assessee to have shown his relevant accounts in which the commission paid to the broker was entered in respect of these transactions and to have established that brokerage having been paid only in respect of the transactions recorded in his own books and not in the case of the other transactions, these latter transactions had really fallen through. But no such attempt was made by the assessee." Again in M. Ayyaswami Nadar v. State of Madras[1965] 16 S.T.C. 957. , Ramakrishnan and Ramamurti, JJ., justified the enhancement on the basis of the same accounts of the broker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity of such proceeding, and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit." The relevant provision in Act 1 of 1959 is section 32, which is as follows: "Section 32. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion, call for and examine an order passed or proceeding recorded by the appropriate authority under section 4-A, section 12, section 14, section 15, or sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 16 and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the assessment year 1957-58. Even otherwise we are inclined to hold that so long as the Deputy Commissioner had the power to revise under section 12(2) of the old Act and the order passed by him could be brought within that section, the mere mention of section 32 of the new Act in the revisional order passed by him will not make the order itself as one without jurisdiction. Therefore, we have to see whether the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner purporting to be under section 32 of Madras Act 1 of 1959 could be justified as an order under section 12(2) of Madras Act 9 of 1939. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Commissioner had very restricted powers of suo motu revision unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Deputy Commissioner in this case actually relied on the evidence already on record and not on any fresh evidence gathered by making further enquiries. He has not traversed beyond the powers contained in section 12(2) while revising the assessment. To find out whether the order of assessment made by the assessing authority excluding certain turnover from the levy of tax is proper or not, the Deputy Commissioner as revisional authority has to reconsider the evidence already on record and this is what has been done in this case. We cannot, therefore, accept the petitioners' contention that the order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner could not be brought under section 12(2) of the old Act. The result is the tax case is dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
