9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee did not maintain manufacturing account and the assessment for both the years was made at ₹ 1,50,000/- each. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) (in short the A.C. (J) ) reduced the turnover to ₹ 90,000/- for the assessment year 1975-76 and accepted the disclosed turnover for the assessment year 1976-77. On appeal of the revenue the Tribunal reversed the order of the A. C. (J) for both the years and affirmed the orders of the assessing authority. 2. The submissions made by Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee are that simply because the books of account were rejected for want of manufacturing account for the purpose of U. P. Sales Tax Act, the book version cannot be rejected for the same re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year 1975 76. 3. Then the argument is that no good reason has been given by the Tribunal to affirm the assessed turnover of ₹ 1,50,000,/-each for both the years as against turnover determined by the A. C. (J) at ₹ 90,000/- and ₹ 89,977.50 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively. The A. C. (J) observed that there was no solid proof of suppression of the sales and, therefore the turnover could reasonably be estimated at ₹ 90,0 JO/-. The Tribunal has not endorsed this reasoning of the A. C. (J). The Tribunal while affirming the turnover determined by the assessing officer, observed as under : - The appellate authority maintained the enhancement under U. P. head from ₹ 1,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court, the contention of the assessee, that as no specific suppression was detected in regard to inter-State sales the assessment at ₹ 1,50,000/- each was bad, is erroneous. Then the question is whether the assessment at ₹ 1,50,000/- each for both the years is justifiable. In 1970 UPTC 309 (supra) this Court also held in Para 7 as follows : - The suppression was distributed between the U. P. and inter-State sales in the same proportion, in which the assessee had disclosed his sales. In the absence of any other available method, the assessing authorities did not commit any error of law in adopting this procedure. 6. Relying on the aforesaid view of this Court, I am of the view that the assessment at ₹ 1,50,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
