9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self filed an application for compounding the offence in the sum of Rs. 30,000. It was accepted. The assessing authority rejected the accounts and the book results and an estimate was made. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated December 22, 1987, substantially decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The Revenue filed a revision in this Court (T.R.C. No. 119 of 1989). The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was set aside by judgment dated June 19, 1989* and a remit was ordered to the Tribunal. It is in pursuance to the said order of remit, the Appellate Tribunal decided the matter again and allowed the appeal to the limited extent stated in paragraph 8 of the appellate order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 litres of arrack from "other sources" and this was not brought to account. There was no evidence to prove that this had suffered tax at the purchase point. The offence of non-maintenance of true and correct account was admitted and compounded departmentally on payment of Rs. 30,000. The suppression actually detected at the time of inspection was 62,293 litres of arrack. The suppression related to the period of seven months from April 1, 1985 to October 31, 1985. The assessing authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal made an addition to cover the suppressions for the remaining period of the year also. Counsel for the assessee contends that this is not permissible. *Reported as Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Siva Traders in [1990] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfer that the assessee had large scale dealings outside the accounts for the whole year. As stated by the Supreme Court, it was not possible for the assessing authority to find out precisely the turnover suppressed and he could only make an estimate of the suppressed turnover on the basis of the materials available before him, including the materials unearthed at the time of inspection. The estimate so made for the whole year has a reasonable nexus with the facts discovered. It cannot be said that the best judgment assessment made in the instant case is in any way arbitrary or it had no rational basis. The assessing authority is the sole judge of the situation. It is his best judgment assessment. As the final fact-finding authority, the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
