9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee and the other by the State, for the same assessment year 1991-92. The assessee was a retail dealer in arrack during the relevant year. Three inspections were held. On all the inspections, petitioner/assessee did not have the proper accounts and, therefore, nonmaintenance of accounts was accepted and compounding fee paid on three occasions. In the assessment also, petitioner did not produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, modified the assessment by sustaining addition of Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal, on departmental appeal, restored the assessment by allowing the departmental appeal and by dismissing the assessee's appeal. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly canvassed for acceptance of the accounts, we feel the claim is absurd because the dealer admittedly did not main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts should be accepted. Having upheld the rejection of petitioner's books of account, we cannot accept petitioner's theory that the sale value accounted is the price realised for the purchased quantity accounted. It is seen from the Tribunal's order that the purchase price was Rs. 26 and going by the purchase quantity accounted by petitioner, the sale price should be Rs. 146 per li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... telligence Department and the assessing officer, we see no reason to deviate from the same. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to accept the market price determined by the assessing officer based on enquiry, is upheld. The next question to be considered is whether the estimation of first sales of arrack is justified or not. It is seen that this court has upheld the order of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
