9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n) is admitted on the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Joint Commissioner was right in revising the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner only on the basis of the statement recorded at the time of inspection, ignoring the explanation given at the time of assessment is correct in law? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Joint Commissioner was right in rejecting the explanation of the appellant, following a circular made in J1/45976/90 dated 16.07.1990 by the Department is correct in law? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Joint Commissioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner pointed out that even after taking note of the purchases, admittedly, there was some stock variation and the appellants had also not maintained some of the basis records, required to be maintained by them, hence, an adhoc addition of Rs.25,000/- assessable at 10% was levied by the appellate Assistant Commissioner. As far as penalty was concerned, the appellate Assistant Commissioner found that it could be levied in cases where the stock variation was more and accordingly, the appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the penalty levied under Section 12 (3) of the Act. 6. The order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was suo moto reviewed by the Joint Commissioner. After going through the records, the Joint Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 50% of the taxes lost would meet the justice. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the Joint Commissioner suo motu restoring the turnover of Rs.36,056/- taxable at 10% and Rs.22,888/- taxable at 4% involving a tota tax of Rs.4,522/-, surcharge of Rs.541/- and additional charge of Rs.180/- with penalty at Rs.2,164/-. 7. We have perused the order passed by the Joint Commissioner and we are satisfied that the order of the Joint Commissioner does not warrant any interference. It is seen that based on the results obtained in the inspection of the place of business, the Assessing Officer made a best assessment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the additions and penalty which was suo motu reviewed by the Joint Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
