TMI Blog1977 (12) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axable turnover determined at Rs. 1,99,309.79 for the year 1963-64. Subsequently, in a raid made on 17th July, 1964, some account books relating to Royal Lorry Booking Office, Virudhunagar, were recovered. In those books, certain entries relating to the assessee, V.U. Panneer Nadar of Virudhunagar, for the transport of goods from Virudhunagar to certain places were found. There were no entries in the books of the assessee corresponding to three entries in the books of Royal Lorry Booking Office for the sale of 1,657 bags of blackgram dhall, 252 bags of broken dhall and 8 bags of blackgram. The taxing officer relied upon the account books of Royal Lorry Booking Office, as having been regularly maintained, and estimated the "suppression" of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the appeal only to the penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the penalty and cancelled it on the ground that there is nothing to show either in the preassessment notice or in the order of assessment that the assessee wilfully suppressed the turnover, which escaped assessment, relying upon the following observation of this Court made in Oveekee Textiles v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchengode[1971] 27 S.T.C. 439.: "The levy of penalty under section 16(2) is conditional upon the satisfaction of the authority that the escapement of turnover was the result of an overt culpable act on the part of the assessee. Such satisfaction though strictly appearing to be referable to the mental satisfaction of the assessing authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany[1977] 39 S.T.C. 85. It was held that the use of the word 'suppression' showed the wilful nature of the non-disclosure; and that, if it had not been wilful non-disclosure, the assessing authority would have used the word 'omission' and that the Tribunal in that particular case was not right in setting aside the penalty on the ground that there was no finding of wilful nondisclosure. In view of the above decision, it follows that when once the word 'suppression' had been used, it is clear that the authorities had given a finding that there was a wilful non-disclosure of a part of the turnover which was brought to tax under section 16; and the penalty levied, therefore, was proper and the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
