9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... call for these documents. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that there was no suppression. One factor, which appears to be correct is that the petitioner has not availed any ITC on the alleged purchase suppression. This factor is a main factor to be noted to examine the conduct of the petitioner/dealer. The second respondent/appellate authority rightly observed that the petitioner did not produce any documents before the Assessing Officer or before the appellate authority - matter is remanded to the second respondent/appellate authority with a specific direction to the petitioner to produce all the records before the appellate authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.24459 of 2017 & W.M.P.No.25842 of 2017 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 15,83,362/- and after due verification, they have taken into account the purchases and kept them as closing stock for the year 2014-15. The petitioner stated that the purchase value of ₹ 15,84,362/- has been shown as closing stock and they proposed to sell the closing stock in the year 2015-16. Therefore, the petitioner requested the first respondent to drop the re-assessment and levy of penalty. 4.The second respondent after considering the objections, passed an order of assessment dated 29.10.2015, holding that the petitioner has accepted the defect of non-reporting of purchases and only after issue of notice, they have come forward with such plea. Further, the second respondent observed that in Annexure V to Form I for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the petitioner to prove that there was no suppression. One factor, which appears to be correct is that the petitioner has not availed any ITC on the alleged purchase suppression. This factor is a main factor to be noted to examine the conduct of the petitioner/dealer. The second respondent/appellate authority rightly observed that the petitioner did not produce any documents before the Assessing Officer or before the appellate authority. 7.Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner candidly admitted that his client has committed a mistake. However, he pleads one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner by remitting the matter for fresh consideration as the petitioner has sufficient records to show that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
