9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment' should not be speculative or fanciful but on reasonable guess based upon the material available before the Assessing Authority. In the present case, admittedly, the one tax invoice, which was found to be fake, was of ₹ 11,970/- and solely on the basis of the said invoice, the evaded sales has been assessed at ₹ 26,15,000/- i.e. 100% of the disclosed sales. The Assessing Authority is bound to act in a rational manner while resorting to best judgement assessment in view of the facts on record it is clear that only one bill of ₹ 11,570/- was available as material to assess the evaded sales. There was nothing more before the Assessing Authority to form an opinion that sales equal to the declared sales should be determined as evaded sales - the evaded sales should be quantified as ₹ 2,61,500/- that is the 10% of the total disclosed sales for the purposes of determining in the tax liability - The liability of payment of tax shall be calculated for the year 2014-15 treating evaded sales at ₹ 2,61,500/-. Revision allowed in part. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 94 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2020 - Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (₹ 60,00,000 Provincial ₹ 20 lacs Central Sales) and thus the tax payable by the assessee was assessed at ₹ 17,50,000/- in Provincial case and ₹ 2,80,000/- in Central Sales. The order dated 04.12.2017 was rectified in respect of the Central Sales vide order dated 18.12.2017. Aggrieved against the order dated 04.12.2017, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and submitted that the manner of best judgement assessment was wholly arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as only one bill recovered or produced by the Mobile Squad was found to be non-genuine and it was argued before the Appellate Authority that the assessment taking into account the entire sales, the State as well as the Central was an arbitrary exercise of power. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 18.2.2018, was of the opinion that the determination of the turn over on the basis of 'best judgement assessment' was based upon maintenance of parallel bill book hence the evaded sales was assessed as equal to the disclosed sales of the assessee i.e. 26,15,000/-. As regards, the Central Sales, the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that as no evidence was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sofar as estimation of turnover is concerned, normally, this Court does not interfere if such an estimation is found arising from material and evidence on record, however, in the present case, other than the two undisclosed bills recording transactions worth ₹ 5,520/- (in all), there is absolutely no material considered by the assessing officer or the appellate authority for the purposes of making an estimation. It is a settled position in law that the estimation made must arise from and be proportionate to the evidence of undisclosed turnover. In the instant case, as against the undisclosed turnover ₹ 5,520/- discovered, that too, on one date, i.e. 01.01.2006, the estimation as has been sustained, bears no proportion being ₹ 5,25,000/-. The same cannot be sustained. Normally, this Court would have remanded the matter to the fact finding authority to record a proper finding of its own, however, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the assessment year in question is 2005-06 and almost 14 years have passed since then. If the matter were to be remitted today, largely, it would be a waste of time, inasmuch as the assessment had arisen under the U.P. Trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The observations made by this Court in the order dated 22.7.2015 does not appear to have been taken note of in correct perspective and without any independent material or finding, it has reiterated the view taken earlier by it. There is no finding that assessee had persistently committed such default or that it was done with deliberate intent. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, enhancement ought not to have been made more than twice the escaped transaction. The question of law raised in this revision is accordingly answered by holding that tribunal was not justified in enhancing the turnover above twice the escaped transaction in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the enhancement to the tune of 28 times is not justified. In view of the judgements referred above, counsel for the revisionist argues that the assessment made against the assessee, the appellate orders herein are wholly arbitrary and illegal and deserves to be set aside. The Standing Counsel, on the other hand, argues that there was no error committed by Assessing Authority in rejecting the Books of Accounts on the basis of one bill, which on examination was found to be iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
