9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1966-67. The order of assessment is dated 8th October, ,1968. The place of business of the assessee as well as the residence of the assessee were inspected by the special staff of the Intelligence Wing on 8th October, 1970. During the course of inspection certain anamath records containing the business transactions of the dealer were secured. A scrutiny of the entries made therein showed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, a penalty of Rs. 500 was also levied. The assessee appealed against the addition as well as the penalty before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the addition to the assessment as well as the liability to penalty. But he reduced the penalty to Rs. 250. On further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 36,581.60 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of turnover as proved by the anamath accounts and once "suppression" was proved the finding has necessarily to be understood as if there was a wilful non-disclosure of the relevant amount in the return. The learned counsel for the assessee, relying on a decision of this court in Ramakutty Nadar v. State of Madras[1973] 31 S.T.C. 44., submitted that there must be a specific finding establishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been used, it is clear that the authorities had given a finding that there was a wilful non-disclosure of a part of the turnover which was brought to tax under section 16; and the penalty levied, therefore, was proper and the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty. The penalty as confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is restored. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
