TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tubes, valves, PVC pipes, etc. For the assessment year 1990-91 (commencing from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991) the petitioner submitted annual return declaring the gross turnover (GTO) and taxable turnover (TTO) at Rs. 48,48,641.54 and Rs. 18,06,271.52 respectively. 3. During the course of assessment, it was noticed by the assessing authority that the C.T.O. (Intelligence) II, N.Z., Belgaum, had inspected the business premises of the petitioner on October 11, 1990 for verification of purchase bills of nuts and bolts and found that the same were not accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee. The details of 7 lorry receipts are as under: L.R. No. No. Of Bags Value Rs. 9527/7-6-90 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner from undisclosed sources. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected by the assessing authority and estimating the sales at 5 times the suppressed sales and 15 per cent gross profit made an addition' of Rs. 4,02,500 to the declared turnover and also levied penalty of Rs. 10,000 under, section 12(4) of the Act. 5.. Aggrieved by the rejection of the books of accounts, additions made and penalty levied, petitioner filed an appeal under section 20 of the Act before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum Division, Belgaum. Appellate authority partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the rejection of the return but reduced additions to Rs. 1,40,010 to the declared turnover and also reduced the 'quantum o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore the same was not binding on it. The presumption raised by the authorities that there is non-accounting of purchase turnover of Rs. 70,000 on the basis of a non est order could not be sustained. 9.. We do not find substance in any of the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, it may be made clear that we are not hearing a petition against the order passed by the C.T.O. (Intelligence), N.Z., Belgaum dated October 11, 1990. That order had become final between the parties and that too on the basis of an admission made in writing by the petitioner. The same was compounded at the instance of the assessee and having compounded the same, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same. The order of C.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 20 of the Act. It was observed: "The fact that he has made the payment would indicate beyond any doubt that he was a willing party to the compounding and he cannot object thereto. It is, therefore, difficult to see how an appeal can be filed against an order of compounding." 11.. Mr. Gandhi relied upon [1988] 68 STC 241 [K.M. Puttaswamy (decd. by legal representative) v. Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Mysore Circle] (in the High Court of Karnataka), [1972] 83 ITR 508 (Ponkunnam Traders v. Additional Income-tax Officer (in the Kerala High Court), [1992] 87 STC 513 (Hotel Blue Nile v. State of Tamil Nadu) (in the Madras High Court). In our view, none of these judgments are relevant to the point in issue. In K.M. Puttaswamy's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|