9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent assessee, who is a dealer of fire works, where the officers found that there was unaccounted stock and there was wide variation insofar as books are concerned as well as the actual stock found. It was found that there was an excess stock to the tune of an amount of Rs. 1,50,750/- which was not recorded in the books and the assessee was not able to prove by acceptable evidence with bills or vouchers and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued for 30.10.2001, however, the respondent assessee gave a letter on the spot accepting the mistake and accepted that it is unaccounted stock and that an order may be passed and that he was ready, willing and prepared to pay the penalty as well. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause there are signatures not only of the assessee but counter signed by the AO also on the same day i.e. 23.10.2001, and such stock statement is running into several pages and each duly signed by both the assessee as well as the AO. 5. Learned counsel further contended that if a claim is made at much later stage that there was coercion or pressure by the AO, cannot be considered at such a belated stage and had the assessee any grievance of coercion or otherwise, he could have approached the senior officers bringing to the notice that there was coercion and pressure built up by the AO at the time of survey. Learned counsel also contended that u/R. 50, only in a case where goods are to be attached or seized, two witnesses are required other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CTO v. M/s. Dueful Laboratories [STR 542/2011, decided on 29.8.2016]. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material including the records of the survey team. On perusal of the survey records, in my view the claim of the learned counsel for the assessee as well as Tax Board that there are no signatures of the assessee or of the AO, on stock statement is not found correct and even the finding reached by the Tax Board in my view is not well justified. The original records do prove that there is a stock statement running into several pages and both the assessee as well as the AO have duly signed the statement. A trading account was also drawn from 1.4.2001 to 22.10.2001 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding later on and after a considerable long period. The facts are identical of the instant petition vis a vis the judgment supra.
10. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent assessee are distinguishable on facts.
11. In my view, after going through the facts found and perusal of the records and taking into consideration the judgment of this court in the case of ACTO v. M/s Lining Bukram House (supra), the order of Tax Board is not sustainable and is required to be interfered and is accordingly interfered and the finding reached by the AO and DC(A) is just and proper and is accordingly sustained, and thus the penalty was rightly levied. Consequently, the petition succeeds. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
