9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver by adopting the formula and restricting the claim of second sales. In respect of penalty, the Tribunal is not correct in levying penalty of ₹ 43,945 for the assessment year 1993-94 because certain discrepancies was found by the assessing officer in adopting the formula and made addition. It is also seen from the records that the figures and other things are taken from the account books only, otherwise the addition is made only on the estimation and therefore, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levying penalty since the authorities restricted the claim by adopting formula and not as a concrete basis. We answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the appeal is allowed. - Tax Case (Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnover of ₹ 61,21,690 and 27,01,300 and levied penalty of ₹ 87,927 under section 12(3)(b)(ii) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner/ assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who set aside the addition of ₹ 6,97,542 made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of exemption on second sales and deleted the penalty of ₹ 87,927. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/assessee has filed the present revision. The learned counsel appearing for the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. The Tribunal has given a specific finding that the dealers have not maintained the stock register for inter-State purchases and no inventory on the opening and closing stock held and produced even though the assessee filed separate files for the second sales items and also the sale register was not posted up to the date and the opening stock as on April 1, 1993 has not been produced for verification. The Tribunal further held that the local and inter-State purchase items were kept mingled and not identifiable and no stock book was maintained and produced for inspection. In view of the factual finding that there is no inventory or bill wise details for reconciliation of the stock taken at the time of inspection and the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
