9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (5) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investment of Rs. 10,000, and a credit of Rs 4,000 which stood in the name of his deceased mother. These sums had been treated by the Income-tax Officer as income falling under the head "other sources" in the assessment proceedings under the Central Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment year. The total sum of Rs. 14,000 was treated by the Sales Tax Officer as profit from undisclosed transactions and the turnover of such transactions was estimated at Rs. 93,333. Adding this amount to the declared turnover, the officer determined the taxable turnover for the year at Rs. 1,91,972. The order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichur. On further appeal, the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by a majority, held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong in holding that the appellant would have suppressed his sales of foodgrains. In any case, the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the income is not from dealings in foodgrains." The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has thus come to a finding without any evidence and has wrongly placed the burden of proof upon the assessee. 3.. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was followed by the Chairman of the Tribunal, was considered in appeal by the Supreme Court: see Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P.[1977] 39 S.T.C. 30 at 33 (S.C.). In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court stated: "In order to impose liability upon the appellant-firm for payment of sales tax by treating that amount as prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax and not from other sources." The burden of proving this, as pointed out earlier, is not on the assessee but on the department. 4.. In the present case, there is no evidence whatever to connect the sum of Rs. 14,000 with a business transaction that is liable to sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer and the appellate authorities were, in our view, not justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had derived this amount from sale transactions which are liable to sales tax. Their conclusions are not supported by any evidence whatsoever and are, therefore, unsustainable in law. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the addition of Rs. 93,333 to the turnover in foodgrains in the assessee's business for the relevant assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
