2017 (12) TMI 1782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 14 February 1999. On this basis the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have incorrectly proceeded to assume that 113 additional transactions were presumably undertaken by the assessee. They have also further and for reasons which cannot possibly be countenanced or accepted proceeded to hold that all these 113 transactions would have been valued at ₹ 60,770/-. The Court is constrai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the bill in question bore the number 114, cannot automatically lead one to conclude or hold that it was preceded by 113 prior transactions and that too of identical value. Such a process of determination and assessment in the case of a taxing statute cannot be accorded approval by this Court. The order of the Tribunal as well as the Assessing Authority dated 9 February 2007 and 24 December 2004 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eedings the respondents appear to have come across a bill dated 14 February 1999 numbered Bill No. 114 evidencing a transaction valued at ₹ 60,770/-. Upon discovery of this bill proceedings under Section 21(2) of the 1948 Act were undertaken. The Assessing Authority upon a consideration of the material on record proceeded to hold that the discovery of the bill in question would evidence that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... February 1999. On this basis the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have incorrectly proceeded to assume that 113 additional transactions were presumably undertaken by the assessee. They have also further and for reasons which cannot possibly be countenanced or accepted proceeded to hold that all these 113 transactions would have been valued at ₹ 60,770/-. The Court is constrained .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in question bore the number 114, cannot automatically lead one to conclude or hold that it was preceded by 113 prior transactions and that too of identical value. Such a process of determination and assessment in the case of a taxing statute cannot be accorded approval by this Court. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, this revision shall stand allowed. The order of the Tribunal as well as the A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X