9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed further addition towards probable omission and confirmed the levy of penalty in respect of stock variation - Decided against assessee. - Tax Case (Revision) No. 1962 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2012 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. Ravichandra Baabu,JJ. For the Petitioner :Mr. S. Ramesh Kumar For the Respondent :Mr. A. R. Jayapratap Special Government Pleader (Tax) ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman, J) The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.01.1995 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial tax, Chennai revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made in A.P. No. 818 of 1992. 2. The Tax Case (Revision) is admitted on the following substantial quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed certain purchase bills which according to the assessee were not considered by the inspecting officers at the time of inspection. According to the assessee, the inspecting officers had not considered some of the purchases made during the time of stock reconciliation. Therefore, according to the assessee, after deducting the purchases made, the stock variation came to only 12.710 kgs and not 515.090 kgs. 5. The appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the assessee did not maintain the day to day stock account and quantitative particulars for goods, details for second sales of SP goods in Form XXX and opening and closing stock inventory were not maintained by them. The appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that even after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the evidence by the assessee ought not to have been accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. When the assessee was purchasing stainless steel patta and giving it to workers for manufacture of stainless steel vessels, the assessing officer was justified in assessing a turnover of Rs.22,888/- under Section 7-A. On the other hand, out of Rs.24 lakhs the assessee had sold goods in the course of inter-state trade substantially. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner imposed further addition towards probable omission and confirmed the levy of penalty in respect of stock variation. However, on the levy of penalty, the Joint Commissioner, by taking a lenient view, held that a sum of Rs.2,164/- being 50% of the taxes lost would meet the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
