9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable turnover at Rs. 15,32,151 (Rs. 6,48,527 at 10 per cent and Rs. 8,83,624 at 4 per cent) and the penalty at Rs. 3,165. The additional sales tax was fixed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 10,725. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee preferred a second appeal disputing the addition of Rs. 5,92,440 at 10 per cent, Rs. 4,00,044 at 4 per cent and penalty of Rs. 3,165. The department filed an enhancement petition praying enhancement of the taxable turnover to Rs. 10,51,314 under 10 per cent and Rs. 15,42,480 under 4 per cent and the penalty to Rs. 61,194. The details of Rs. 5,92,440 taxable under 4 per cent are as under: Rs. (a) Sales suppressions of stainless steelwares as per inspection on September 29, 1980. 5,000 (b) Sales suppression of stainless steelwares as per inspection on May 9, 1980. 50,142 (c) Sales suppression as per inspection on December 24, 1980. 2,68,649 (d) Addition for probable omission 2,68,649 5,92,440 Addition of turnover of Rs. 5,000 as per inspection on September 29, 1980: towards sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted March 11, 1981 filed by the assessee against the levy of compounding fee. Thus the purchase bill produced by the assessee was accepted by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy. On the basis of the abovesaid finding the Tribunal held that the contention put forward by the assessee cannot be rejected. The Tribunal further pointed out that if the quantity involved in the bill is taken into account the difference if any would be only 51.030 kgs. which in the opinion of the Tribunal is very negligible considering the large scale purchase and sale effected by the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepted the explanation offered by the assessee in the matter of deleting the addition of Rs. 36,178. 3. The Tribunal considered that the addition of turnover of Rs. 2,610, Rs. 9,754 and Rs. 1,600 were not properly explained by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal does not want to disturb the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in confirming these additions. For the source reason we do not want to interfere with the same. 4. The sales suppressions as per inspection conducted on December 24, 1980, i.e., Rs. 2,68,649 and addition for probable omission Rs. 2,68,649: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be made on the suppression of sale of Rs. 2,61,400 relating to the goods stored in the unregistered place. So also the Tribunal deleted the equal addition of Rs. 2,61,400 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The department filed an enhancement petition before the Tribunal for the restoration of the addition relating to the actual suppression of Rs. 2,61,400 and also for the equal addition towards suppression made. 6. The assessee's main contention was that the discrepancies in stock noticed exist because of the fact that the stock taken from the unregistered godown should also be considered. Arriving at the overall picture the stock available in the unregistered godown should also come from the admitted purchases of the assessee. Therefore, it was submitted that it is not proper to treat them as unaccounted purchase. They are purchases outside the account but stored in the godown. Therefore, it was submitted that it is incorrect to admit that these stocks are outside the accounts, and therefore, they are suppressions. 7.. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that no evidence was produced to show that the unregistered godown was acquired 20 days ago. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that these sales amounting to Rs. 2,61,400 finds a place in the books, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on verification of the account books pointed out that the version put forward by the assessee on this aspect is not correct. The Tribunal deleted this addition on the ground that these sales were found in the stock books and storing those goods in the unregistered godown is merely a procedural irregularity. It remains to be seen that it is for the assessee to prove that even though these goods are stored in an unregistered godown, the sales turnover or the stocks found in the godown are already entered in the account books. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order pointed out that the assessee had not proved that these stocks are found in the account books. Two inspections were conducted by the Enforcement Wing. In respect of all the stocks available in the godown there were discrepancies in maintaining the accounts. Admittedly the assessee is not maintaining stock account. Unless the assessee maintains stock account it is not possible for the assessee to submit that the stocks found in the unregistered godown are entered in the account books. Therefore, the plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales had been arrived at by an approximate average rate of sale. But, however, the Tribunal pointed out that the deficit noted is excessive. The Tribunal further pointed out that no explanation for the transaction found in the slip was offered by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 26,820 taxable at 4 per cent. Even before us no further evidence was produced to explain the deficit found. In the absence of explanation on the side of the assessee we see no reason to interfere with the addition made by the Tribunal on this item of turnover. 11. Suppression of Rs. 1,86,612 and addition for probable omissionRs. 1,86,612: The assessing officer found that the assessee kept stocks in various unregistered places to the tune of Rs. 1,86,612. The assessing officer treated the goods kept there as unaccounted sales. The deficit stock found in the place of business was treated as suppression. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner after considering that the explanation offered by the assessee was not supported by documents and since the deficit stock is of a great magnitude sustained the addition of Rs. 1,86,612 as suppressed turnover and also made an equal additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
