9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OF SALES TAX, UP., LUCKNOW [ 1987 (8) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ], it was rightly pointed out that although the initial onus was on the Assessee to show that no sale was made, the question arose as to how the Assessee is expected to discharge that onus - Since in that case the Revenue failed to disprove the Assessee s contention, the addition made to the taxable turnover presuming sales, was set aside. As far as the present case is concerned again, the Assessee cannot be expected to negatively prove that there was no purchase suppression. The Assessee in fact placed materials to show that the transaction was a loan transaction. If the Department was to doubt it, it had the onus then shifted to the Department to show that there was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter, it was reopened under Section 12(8) of the OST Act on the basis of a fraud case report submitted by the Vigilance Department, according to which the Assessee had procured goods worth Rs.5,36,875/- from one Sri Ramesh Kumar Sikaria of Guwahati but had failed to reflect it in the purchase register. The explanation offered by the Assessee was that he had given a personal loan of Rs.5 lakhs to Mr. Sikaria and had recovered back the principal amount together with interest in an aggregate sum of Rs.5,36,875/. 3. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the said contention and termed the loan transaction as purchase suppression. Accordingly, the gross taxable turnover (GTO) was enhanced by Rs.21,72,150/- which was four times the alleged su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in the books of the Assessee as well as Mr. Sikaria the transactions were reflected as contended by the Assessee and this could not have been ignored by the authorities. 10. Mr. Sunil Mishra, leaned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned orders of the authorities and submitted that there was nothing to show that the Assessee was ever authorized to carry on the business of giving loans and therefore, the inference drawn that the purchase suppression was justified. 11. It is seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal that a letter was produced from Mr. Sikaria and placed before the Tribunal in which the statement of the account of the Assessee as appearing in the books of Mr. Sikaria was enclosed. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
