1973 (4) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etermined had not been disclosed in the returns and, therefore, a penalty of Rs. 3,178 for not disclosing that turnover in the returns was levied. As against the said assessment, the assessee went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who upheld the assessment order as well as the levy of penalty. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessee not only questioned the assessment on merits but also questioned the propriety of the levy of penalty under section 12(3) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the order levying penalty on the ground that though a portion of the turnover has not been disclosed in the returns, it having been disclosed in the accounts which formed the basis for the assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... entative and a report to be sent. Accordingly, the State representative verified the said month-war statements and submitted a report in which he stated that a sum of Rs. 47,800 should be added to the admitted taxable turnover of Rs. 65,259.35 for the reason that certain bills for labour and for materials though issued separately related to the same vehicle and that such a splitting up of the receipts is intended to camouflage the bodybuilding contract into two sets of contracts, one for sale of materials and another for pure labour. The Tribunal agreed with the report made by the State representative that the bills for materials and for labour were In relation to the same vehicle, and the turnover of such bills came to Rs. 47,800. But the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essary to consider whether the sale of materials and the contract for labour are independent of the body-building contracts entered into earlier by the assessee with the same customer. If really the bills for materials and for labour relate to an anterior order placed for body-building, then it has to be taken that there are no independent contracts for supply of materials and for labour and that they relate only to the prior order for body-building. We find that the Tribunal merely proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the assessee's statement without probing further into the matter with reference to the various records and the correspondence between the customers and the assessee in relation to the body-building works undertaken by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X