9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter-State purchase omissions were duly recorded in the book of accounts and the corresponding sales were submitted for assessment at the time of making the original assessment and, therefore, the revision made on the very same turnover is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in its judgment reported in 3 MTCR page 82 in the case of Gomraj Metal Wares, Madras wherein it was held that the accounted for turnover need not be again taken as suppression and additions and cannot be made on the same ?" 2. It is seen that there was an inspection conducted on 14.12.2001 in the assessee's shop in respect of the assessment year 2001-02. The inspection revealed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to be available in the computer, which was stated to be locked under the secret password of the Auditor and in such circumstances, the contention of the assessee that the purchase details were available in the computer was found unacceptable. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal further pointed out that the inspection revealed that the assessee had not maintained separate stock book for inter-State purchases and local purchases as on 14.12.2001; the opening stock details as on 1.4.2001 was not maintained item wise. In the background of this, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal considered that the subsequent accounting of the transactions of inter-State purchase would not by itself be a ground to grant the relief to the assessee. The Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal towards probable omission is concerned, we however agree with the contention of the assessee that when the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had accepted the case of the assessee on the subsequent accounting of the inter-State transaction, we do not find any justifiable ground to uphold the further addition towards probable omission. 7. In the circumstances, while confirming the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the actual suppression found, we do not find any ground to uphold the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in sustaining equal time addition . Thus, while deleting the further addition towards probable omission, we confirm the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 8. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
