9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand payment of any interest and shall issue a notice of re-assessment to the dealer demanding that the tax shall be paid within 30 days of the date of service of the notice after giving the dealer the opportunity of showing cause against such re-assessment in writing. It is not in dispute that the Assessee has admitted the suppression of turnover at the time of the Enforcement Authority inspecting the business premises of the Assessee. It is not once, but on two occasions the business premises of the Assessee was inspected. On both the occasions, it was detected by the Enforcement Authority that the Assessee had indulged in the practice of not accounting the sales in the regular books of accounts - The conduct of the Assessee in not m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied by himself on the basis of Estimate Bills and credit note book amounting to ₹ 43,80,076.00 as suppressed sales and further one time addition of equal value, is correct in the eyes of law ? And whether one time addition is based on any material on hand? 2. Whether the DCCT (Audit) 2 DVO Kalaburagi is correct in treating the stock difference noted by the Enf. Authority, amounting to ₹ 27,82,250.00 as suppressed T.O. and whether addition of Equal value to the T.O. is correct when it was not based on any material on hand ? 3. Whether penalty levied for ₹ 1,00,631.00 U/s 72(2) of the DCCT (Audit) 2 Kalaburagi is correct, when the petitioner has paid entire amount of tax payable as per the return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012-2013 and assessed to the best of judgment under Section 39(1) of the Act by enhancing the turnover equal to the suppressed turnover detected by the Inspecting Authority for the month of September, 2013 in addition to the levy of penalty and interest. Further, 10% turnover was added to the reported turnover for the tax periods April, 2013 to March 2014. 3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Authority who modified the order of the prescribed authority deleting the addition of 10% turnover to the reported turnover to the tax periods April, 2013 to March, 2014 (except September, 2013). In all other respects the order of the prescribed Authority was confirmed, being aggrieved the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Authority indeed was admitted by the Assessee and the payments towards the tax liability determined was made. In view of the admission made by the Assessee towards the suppression of sales turnover, the same cannot be challenged by the Assessee subsequently. The shortage found in the closing stock would indicate that the Assessee has not disclosed the correct turnover and the stock which was liable to tax has not been accounted. The tax liability ought to have been escaped if the same was not detected by the Enforcement Authority. Hence, the Prescribed Authority while concluding the assessment through best judgment is empowered to make addition of the suppressed turnover equal to one time as now made for the month of September, 2013. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. On the other hand, seven estimate bill books and the credit note books were found in the business premises of the Assessee which clearly indicated the sales made by the Assessee without accounting the same in the regular books. The difference in the shortage of closing stock also demonstrates the Assessee not keeping the proper books of accounts and the unaccounted sales without issuing sale invoices, which would otherwise, liable to payment of tax. The tax liability to which the Assessee is liable has come to light only on the inspection of the business premises conducted by Enforcement Wing, otherwise would have been a loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. The conduct of the Assessee in not maintaining the regular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by the KAT. 11. For the foregoing reasons, except question of law No.(3) all other questions of law raised by the petitioner requires to be answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue. As regards the question No.(3), we are of the considered view that penalty levied at ₹ 1,00,631/- under Section 72(2) of the Act requires to be re-considered in view of the return filed by the petitioner for the tax period September, 2013 disclosing the sales turnover detected by the enforcement authority. Hence, penalty under Section 72(2) of the Act has to be redetermined by the Assessing Authority. Only on this point, we remand the matter to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the penalty levied under Section 72( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
