9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an COMMON ORDER The revision orders under challenge in the above writ petitions are for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 passed on 30.07.2019 and 31.07.2019. The Enforcement Wing Officers of the respondent department conducted a surprise inspection at the business premises of the petitioner / dealer on 10.12.2014 and found purchase omission of Rs. 54,75,982/- for the assessment year 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not accounted by the dealer and therefore, purchase omissions were made in the turnover. The dealer had requested for examination of the Seller namely Valli and Sons. During cross-examination of the Partner of Valli and Sons, would deposed that he could not produce any substantiating material to show that the goods were sold only to the petitioner and none else. It leads to an inference that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has proved the cash purchase made by the petitioner. On the other hand, the fact remains that there are no substantiating materials to prove the same. In the absence of proof of purchase made by the petitioner, the purchase omissions attributed to the petitioner based on the inspection report cannot be sustained. 4. The respondent has not discussed the issue of the lack of evidence, but held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
