9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by the assessee and partly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue and estimated the turnover of central sales at Rs. 30,00,000/-. 2. During the assessment year in question, the assessee had engaged in the activity of trading in hides and skins. It disclosed turnover Rs. 3,02,400/- under the Central Act. Arising from the detection of a transaction of interstate sale against Bill No. 113 dated 12.03.2001 for Rs. 7,83,890/-, the Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the total turnover of central sales at Rs. 40,00,000/-, in the reassessment proceedings. Upon appeal, the first appeal authority upheld the reassessment proceedings but reduced the estimation of turnover to Rs. 20,00,000/-. The order of the first appeal authority was challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry transaction of undisclosed sale, the first appeal authority had made a reasonable estimation of turnover at Rs. 20,00,000/- which was seven times the disclosed turnover. There was absolutely no material before the Tribunal to have increased the same. Thus, the estimation made by the Tribunal is both unfounded on material and also not proper, inasmuch as no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal to reject the estimation made by the first appeal authority. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit that there existed sufficient material in the shape of Bill No. 113. Looking into the nature of trade and the volume of transaction, the order of the Tribunal is wholly justified. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imated the total turnover almost twice of that value being Rs. 20,00,000/-. 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 Rs. 30,00,000/-. 11. Also, the assessment year in question is 2000-01. More than 18 years have passed since then. While normally this Court would have remanded the matter to the fact finding authority, however, in view of the long period having elapsed, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter on that limited issue, in view of the further fact that the U.P. Trade Tax Act itself had been repealed by the U.P.V.A.T. Act which, in turn, has further been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
