9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The assessee carried on business in foodgrains, oilseeds and Kirana etc. He disclosed turnover of purchases at ₹ 3,39,725/- and of sales of ₹ 9,76,121.68. For various reasons the Assessing Officer did not accept the accounts and the disclosed turnover and determined the total taxable turnover at ₹ 19,70,000/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the cash box. The assessee's explanation about this difference has been accepted and now it does not survive for consideration. Further, it was found that the Dalal Bahi contained a large number of entries which did not bear any date. The assessee offered some explanation. It was partly accepted by the appellate authority. The Additional Judge (Revisions) as well has not given any clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraph 5 of the order the Additional Judge (Revisions) has referred to purchases made against D licence and goods sold by the assessee as Commission Agent. There was no dispute with regard to sales made as Commission Agent and no clear finding had been given on the aforesaid defect and whether or not the assessee's explanation was acceptable or not. Lastly it was found that the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken a similar view in C.S.T. v. K. P. Sui, 1981 UPTC 674 as also in M/s. Praduman Brothers v. Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, 1981 UPTC 274. Reference may also be made to Babu Lal Mahadeo Prasad v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, 1981 UPTC 31. In my opinion, therefore the accounts could be rejected on account of the failure of the assessee to comply with the provisions contained in section 8-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
