TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (7) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere was suppression of sales and he added a sum of Rs. 2,54,894.50. This was on the basis that on a shandy day, namely, 6th December, 1971, there was an inspection of the assessee's premises in which there were slips, which covered a turnover of Rs. 7,282.70. The view of the assessing authority was that there must have been similar suppressions on the other 35 days of shandy and that is how the figure arrived at from the slips was multiplied by 35. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who after elaborately discussing the facts and the contentions of the assessee came to the conclusion that an addition of 3 per cent of turnover as per the accounts would meet the ends of justice. The amount so added came to Rs. 33,67....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f at all, only to the extent of Rs. 6,723.70. He contended that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had gone into all the relevant facts in arriving at the additional turnover to be assessed. For the respondent the submission was that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had proceeded on erroneous lines in reducing the turnover. The point urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader was that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had taken the trade in oilcakes to be seasonal which did not correspond to the facts. His further submission was that by the recovery of the slips on 6th December, 1971, it was established that the assessee had clandestine transactions which could not be held to be isolated so that it had to be distributed for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rlier occasions, there was no justification for the Board of Revenue to proceed on the basis that there were similar suppressions even prior to 6th December, 1971. It hardly needs emphasis that the Board of Revenue in arriving at the turnover is not to act mechanically but to act in a judicial manner while exercising, as it does, its powers of revision, which is a judicial power. As for the criticism that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had wrongly proceeded on the basis that the sales of oilcakes were only seasonal, we find that this criticism is not borne out by the record at all. In the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there is an analysis of the turnover during two periods. The turnover between 1st April, 1971, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Board of Revenue says very little about any wrong reasoning in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner except to mention that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had proceeded erroneously on the basis that the turnover in oilcakes was only a seasonal one. We have shown earlier that on the present facts the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's conclusion regarding the nature of the activity of the assessee being seasonal cannot be found fault with. We have also shown that the estimate made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer could not have been proper in view of the fact that a part of the turnover which was taken as suppressed has been accounted for. The function of the Board of Revenue is to find out whether the order of the A....