9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on estimate basis by giving the partial relief to the assessee. The Tribunal has upheld the same. Thus no question of law is emerging from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, no interference is required - Trade Tax Revision No. 258 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2012 - DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J. M.M. Dewan for the petitioner. Ms. Madhurima Bhargao, Standing Counsel, for the respondent. JUDGMENT Present revision under section 11(1) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated October 20, 2008 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in Second Appeal No. 215 of 2001 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different thing. When the books are maintained by the assessee it was the duty of the assessing officer to investigate them at the stage of assessment and find out if there was any defect and if no defect was found out in the books then they could not be rejected merely on the basis that they were not produced at the time of survey. It seems that this decision was not brought to the notice of the Sales Tax Tribunal when it proceeded to sustain the rejection of account books on the solitary ground that the books were not made available at the time of survey. That apart, as already observed, the books could not be made available because of the absence of the partners and not with any design or oblique motive. 4. He also relied on the rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under the provision of the Act. By itself, it cannot constitute a ground for rejecting the books. 5. The learned counsel also submits that during survey, three papers were found, of which mandi fee was already paid. So, the rejection of books of accounts is not correct. Lastly, he made a request that the addition may kindly be deleted. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Madhurima Bhargao, learned standing counsel for the Department, has justified the impugned order. 7. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on April 25, 1998 and January 14, 1999, where various discrepancies were found as mentioned in the assessing officer order. So, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
