9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the assessee himself and the figures declared by the assessee that the said turnover was subjected to tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act. In the absence of any figures substantiated by the accounts maintained by the assessee, produced at any stage before the authorities below, there are no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal confirming the demand of tax under the said head. Addition of miscellaneous income - HELD THAT:- During the pendency of this OP(TAX), the assessing authority passed the consequential order (Ext. P12) purportedly in compliance with the direction issued by the Tribunal in Ext. P10 order - if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the correctness of the said order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ayurveda treatment charges, and the miscellaneous income could not have been included in the taxable turnover for the purposes of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act. The assessing authority however rejected the claims of the petitioner and confirmed the demand against the petitioner assessee. 3. The First Appellate Authority before whom the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of assessment, excluded the entire turnover representing the cost of medicines and professional charges, and the balance amount alone was subjected to assessment under the head ayurvedic treatment income. However, the yoga and meditation charges and miscellaneous income of Rs. 3,18,691/- were included in the taxable turnover even by the First Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in Ext. P10 order. 6. We have heard Sri. Santhosh P. Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, we find that the contention of the petitioner with regard to the inclusion of an amount of Rs. 3,12,13,293/- towards ayurveda income after giving all deductions as per law cannot be legally countenanced. The finding of the Tribunal in respect of this income is clearly spelt out in paragraph 11 of Ext. P10 order, which reads as under: 11. In the original assessment order, the entire claim made by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pre assessment reply and any new plea deviating from the reply is devoid of any merit. Therefore we are satisfied that the sum of Rs. 3,12,13,293/- taken for assessment towards ayurveda income after giving all deductions as per law under the original assessment order need not be interfered in any manner. 8. It will be seen from the above that it is based on the submissions of the assessee himself and the figures declared by the assessee that the said turnover was subjected to tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act. In the absence of any figures substantiated by the accounts maintained by the assessee, produced at any stage before the authorities below, we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
