9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer had the power to add the amount in dispute, on account of probable omission. The use of the words, to the best of it's judgment creates a wide discretionary power upon the Assessing Officer, who in the instant case has taken the view that in light of the suppression that was uncovered, it was plausible to assume that the Assessee must have suppressed sales at least worth ₹ 42,24,413/-. This view ultimately found favour with the Appellate Tribunal as well. The view taken by the Tribunal is a probable view, and the High Court while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction should not substitute its own view to the view taken by the last fact finding Authority - there is no error in the decisions of the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th dated 03.12.2004 were related to sales made to the Assessee. The Assessing Officer found that though the Assessee had accounted for invoice number 47, they had failed to do so for invoice No.48. The invoiced amounts for both purchases of gold bullion were ₹ 33,25,000/-. The Assessing Officer therefore estimated the value of the sales suppression at the rate of ₹ 42,24,413/-, and added an equal amount for probable omission of sales. The Assessing Officer issued notice for the proposed reassessment for a total amount of ₹ 84,48,286/- under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. 3. The Assessee filed objections stating that there was a dispute with respect to the gold bullion, which were sold under invoice No.47, dated 03.12.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission done by the Assessee. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed. 5. The Assessee did not challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). On the other hand, the State Government preferred an appeal against the deletion of the amount imputed on account of the probable suppression, contending that the deficit stock of finished goods in the inventory of the Assessee, was proof enough for the award of the probable omission. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that the deficit stock of the Assessee indicates suppression of clandestine purchases, manufacture and the resultant sale of such goods, and therefore the addition of the equal amount as probable omission was just and proper. The Tribunal also noted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State contended that the transaction was dated 03.12.2004. Nothing prevented the Assessee from disclosing the sale before 01.04.2005. It was submitted that the Assessee's vendor Tvl. Lakshmi Stores accounted for the relevant invoice in the year 2004-05 itself and therefore the Assessee ought to have accounted for the invoice in the same financial year. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court is limited. The High Court does not sit in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal. The High Court should not in normal circumstances interfere with the order of the Authorities below it unless and until, its non-interference would amount to a travesty of Justice. 11. The only question which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
