9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved by the First Appellate Authority, for the purpose of assessment under Section 12-A of the Act, the AO has to cause enquiry by following the procedures prescribed under Rule 18-C of the Rules. In the absence of any such enquiry, the mere ground that the sister concern had charged higher gross profit by itself could not be a legal ground for making addition. Thus no hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee that a mere difference in profit between the second sale and the first sale would lead to a statutory best judgment under Section 12-A of the Act. In favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Revision) No.292 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Soundararajan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its sales, which was much more than the gross profit charged by the assessee. In other words, the price of the item sold by the sister concern being the second sale, thus exempted from liability was far more than the price on the first sale, thereby the assessee showed less taxable turnover for the purpose of assessment ; in the circumstances, adding gross profit at 25% and thus, sales suppression was estimated at Rs.8,05,303/-. In the context of this, penalty was also proposed. After hearing the assessee, the assessment was confirmed. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the First Appellate Authority, wherein, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, pointed out to the decision of this Court reported in the case of K.Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount for the year ended 31.03.2002. 5. Leaving aside this, the First Appellate Authority held that in the absence of any enquiry made as stipulated under Rule 18-C of the TNGST Rules, there was no material, by which the Assessing authorty could make any addition to the extent of Rs.8,05,303/-. 6. As regards the penalty, the First Appellate Authority sustained the penalty of Rs.33,394/-, with which we are not concerned for the present case. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee went on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the assessment, thereby, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 8. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal pointed out that reading of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
