9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/-. This being a case of central sales, in absence of any material and in absence of any reason being offered by the Tribunal, it appears, the Tribunal has clearly erred in enhancing the estimation made to ₹ 30,00,000/-. The order of the Tribunal dated 24.01.2008 is set aside and the order passed by the first appeal authority is restored - Revision allowed in part. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 56 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2019 - Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. For the Revisionist : Suyash Agrawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH,J. 1. Present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, the burden to prove that central sale of raw leather was made by the Applicant is on the Department? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the enhancement made by the Tribunal is founded to be based on any material or evidence on record? 5. Learned counsel for the assessee, would submit, merely because some information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had performed a transaction outside his books of accounts, no addition may have been made without proper verification of the same. In that regard, it has been further submitted that the revenue never obtained any expert opinion on the hand writing on the disputed bill. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was confronted with the same in the reassessment proceedings. He did not dispute the writing on that bill and he did not apply for an expert opinion on the same. Merely because at the later stage, in appeal, the assessee sought certain information and also sought cross examination of the purchaser, it would not introduce any defect in the reasoning adopted by the first appeal authority. 9. Since the revenue had confronted the assessee with the bill in question, hence, the ratio in the case of Shyam Lal Kamlesh Kumar (supra) is found to be wholly distinguishable. In that case, the assessee had not been confronted with the Mandi gate pass, whereas, in the present case, the assessee was confronted with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
