9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, 121 of 1988 and 122 of 1988 dated June 4, 1990. T.A. Nos. 116 of 1988 and 117 of 1988 were filed by the assessee against the common order passed by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner in S.T.A. Nos. 967 and 968 of 1987. As against the very same order, the State had filed T.A. Nos. 121 and 122 of 1988. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal for the year 1984-85 (T.A. No. 121 of 1988) in part whereas the appeal for the year 1985-86 (T.A. No. 122 of 1988) was allowed in entirety. The appeals filed by the assessee for the aforesaid years (T.A. Nos. 116 and 117 of 1988) were dismissed by the Tribunal as per the common order referred to above. 2.. The questions of law framed by the assessee for the year 1984-85 are as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were completed for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. There is no dispute that both the orders were passed under best of judgment assessment as contemplated under section 17(3) of the Act. The basis for resorting to the said method of assessment is the shop inspection reports prepared by the officers. During the year 1984-85 the shops of the assessee were inspected by the Intelligence Officer, Quilon on September 15, 1984. Similarly during the year 1985-86 the shops were inspected on March 25, 1986. Though the assessee filed returns in form No. 8 for the aforesaid years, the assessing authority issued pre-assessment notices proposing to reject the returns and complete the assessment mainly on the basis of the shop inspection reports prepared b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out in the pre-assessment notices, the assessing authority added 5 per cent of the total sales turnover of arrack and foreign liquor as per accounts towards the probable omissions and suppressions for the year 1984-85. Additions were also made in items like empty bottles, soda water, softs drinks, etc. Likewise for the year 1985-86 addition which represents two times of the turnover involved in the suppression detected was made in the sale turnover of arrack and liquor as per the accounts. The additions were also made in the sales turnover of empty bottles, soft drinks, etc. The Appellate Tribunal has sustained these additions made for both the years except to the extent it relates to the turnover of bottles for the year 1984-85. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntends that on the basis of the shortage in the stock of arrack it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has effected unaccounted purchases and sales. The counsel argues that since the petitioner being a second seller, there is no reason for him to suppress sales of liquor since he is not liable to pay the tax under any circumstances. This argument will hold good only in a case where the assessee had only the accounted purchases and sales. Inasmuch as the assessee had failed to establish that there was only accounted purchases and sales, the inference of the assessing authority cannot be said to be wrongous. The counsel for the assessee placed poignant reliance on the decision of this Court in Kuruvila Chacko v. State of Kerala [1991] KL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one the additions shall not be made. We found it difficult to agree with this contention because the additions were made not only on the ground of shortage in the stock of arrack was due to evaporation was found against the assessee by the Tribunal in view of the unaccounted purchases without bills from the outside source. Therefore, it cannot be said that the additions in this case were made purely on the basis of shortage. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kuruvila Chacko's case [1991] LKJ (TC) 665 have no application to the facts of the present case. 9.. The Division Bench of this Court in S. Valsala v. State of Kerala (T.R.C. No. 168 of 1992)* faced with a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has examined the very basis of the assessment and also the correctness of the modifications ordered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the case of arrack for the year 1984-85 and reduction of addition made in respect of the year 1985-86. The finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was found to be without appreciating the gravity of the suppressions detected during the inspections. The Appellate Tribunal which is the highest fact-finding authority has its own reasons for setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is not for this Court in the revisional jurisdiction to reappreciate the entire evidence in order to come to a different conclusion. We sufficiently note the findings of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
