TMI Blog1957 (4) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vil Miscellaneous Petitions) K.V. Kandaswami Gounder and Brothers were a firm carrying on business as dealers in fibre, coir and rope, the place of business being at Salem junction with a factory and godown at Alagasamudram. For the assessment year 1947-48 the assessment of the assessees was duly completed on the basis of a turn- over of Rs. 30,000 accepting the returns submitted by them by an assessment order dated 6th October, 1948. For the next year 1948-49 the assessees submitted a return in a form showing a net turnover of Rs. 23,109-13-11. Before this assessment was completed, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, conducted surprise inspection of the assessees' factory and godown on 15th March, 1950, at Alagasamudram and seized a number of account books which pertained to the years 1945-46 to 1948-49. The entries in these accounts did not tally with the accounts on the basis of which the A form returns had been furnished. After these accounts were seized and examined, notices were issued to the assessees on 20th March, 1950, (1) to show cause why the final assessment made for the assessment year 1947-48 which had already been completed should not be revised and (2) why th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder in relation to the assessment year 1948-49. To complete the narrative we shall set out the facts in relation to Appeal No. 357 of 1953. For the assessment year 1949-50 the assessees disclosed in their A form return a turnover of Rs. 32,788-0-11. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer called upon the assessees by notice dated 27th March, 1951, to show cause why the accounts on the basis of which the turnover return was computed should not be rejected and why the turnover should not be estimated at Rs. 62,000. This figure was arrived at by computing the turnover taking into account the seized account books and adding to the transactions disclosed those which had been suppressed but which were found entered in the seized books. Except denying the ownership of the account books the assessees offered no other acceptable explanation and when this contention was rejected the assessing authority estimated the turnover at the figure indicated in his notice. There was again an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer and the same process of appeal and revision in the same manner as regards the previous years was gone through in regard to this assessment also. From the final order of the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revisional proceeding can come up before the Board of Revenue into two distinct heads distinguishing them by two sub-clauses. Sub-clause (i) enables the Board by itself, without reference to a party, to take cognizance of orders passed by subordinate authorities and to exercise revisional jurisdiction over them. Sub-clause (ii) contains another mode in which this revisional jurisdiction could be brought into operation and this is by an application by a party. The latter sub-section makes it clear that the remedy by way of revision to the Board, which an assessee might invoke, is an alternative to the remedy by way of appeal under section 12-A. When we come to section 12-C(1) it is found that it specifically enumerates "orders of the Board passed suo motu" from among the orders passed by it under section 12(3) as those in regard to which appeals lie to this Court under that provision. It is therefore clear that an appeal lies to this Court under section 12-C(1) only in those cases where the matter has been taken up by the Board suo motu and that cases where an assessee has invoked the Board's revisional jurisdiction under section 12(3)(ii) are not within the class of orders agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t orders could be sustained. We are impressed by the fact that the construction of section 12-C(1) comes up before us for the first time. But in view of the assessees seeking our indulgence and taking into account the delay in filing the petition we consider that this should be permitted only on terms of the petitioner paying costs to the respondent and this we fix at Rs. 150. Learned counsel realised the precise scope of our jurisdiction under Article 227 and he accordingly took us through records in an effort to show that there was no material on which the assessment orders could be sustained. As we have already indicated, the main burden of the assessees' case was that the account books which were seized on 15th March, 1950, by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, did not belong to them. Before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who effected the re- assessment for the year 1947-48 and the assessment for 1948-49 the point as regards the ownership of the account books was not raised. It was however formulated before the Commercial Tax Officer in their grounds of appeal to him. The Commercial Tax Officer took evidence on the point and it was after considering this evidence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bundle was given the number 18. Kandaswami promised to bring the books of the head office and make them available to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 20th March, 1950. In this statement also, which was signed by Kandaswami, there is no whisper that the account books seized which were described in the inventory by reference to the dates of the transactions and the number of pages contained in each book were not those belonging to the firm or pertaining to their coir or rope business. In our opinion, these two statements recorded on 15th March, 1950, and 16th March, 1950, are admissions that the seized books did belong to the assessees. If this were so, the question is whether the evidence subsequently adduced disputing this ownership could be believed. To put it slightly differently could we say that there was no material on re- cord to support the finding, that these books pertained to the business of the assessees, in the face of the admissions contained in these statements? This question can be answered only in one way and that is that the admission constituted sufficient-and we would add satisfactory- material on the basis of which the finding against the assessees could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
