9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered partnership firm and a dealer in electrical goods registered as such under the Act. For the assessment year April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, he filed return showing total turnover in the sum of Rs. 8,66,113.01 and taxable turnover at Rs. 4,16,319.12. He disclosed the tax collected by him at Rs. 38,024.22. The assessing authority, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Hubli, on verification of the books of accounts produced by the assessee found certain discrepancies which he listed (five in number) as at annexure C-the Commercial Tax Officer's order annexed to the memorandum of appeal. They were: (1) Out of the purchases of Rs. 8,41,243.95 actually made, the entries to the tune of Rs. 22,897.29 were left out. (2) Purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that most of the discrepancies which he had noticed had been taken notice of by him and the taxable turnover determined not as Rs. 9,00,000 but at Rs. 4,53,903.36 including the so-called omissions pointed out by him earlier. Similarly, the classification of P.V.C. pipes, etc., were taken notice of. On that basis, he treated it as taxable turnover and determined the tax payable at Rs. 52,504.36 after giving deduction to the tax already paid, the balance of Rs. 12,089.25 was ordered to be issued. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Hubli, in Appeal No. AP/KST/401/84-85. After hearing the appellant-dealer in substance, the appellate authority found fault with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uded where the sum of Rs. 22,897.29 and a sum of Rs. 17,675 were added under the head "omissions" which had been included by the assessee in his revised return filed after the proposition notice in form No. 31-A. Similarly, the appellant pointed out that the firm, whose registration certificate was cancelled was in fact duly registered and as per the specimen bill issued to the appellant by that firm which came to be accepted by the assessing authority. In that view of the matter, Rs. 3,167 paid towards purchase of electrical goods was shown as purchases made in the year of assessment in question while it was in fact made in the previous year and had been so included in that order. That was apparently a mistake made by the clerks while prep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
