TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticed various defects in the accounts and therefore found them incorrect and incomplete. In view of this reason, the assessing authority issued a notice under section 17(3) of the Act proposing to reject the accounts and to complete the assessment on best of judgment. Though the assessee was allowed time to file objections he did not file any objection against the proposal contained in the notice. Consequently, the assessing authority completed the assessment for the aforesaid year as proposed by it in the pre-assessment notice. While completing the assessment the officer has added a total turnover of Rs. 4,20,135 towards alleged omissions and suppressions which includes an estimated purchase turnover of Rs. 2,00,000. 2.. As against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 towards the omission to produce the originals of the delivery note is a "double punishment" as far as the assessee is concerned. On the other hand, the Government Pleader makes a formidable plea that the order passed by the assessing authority should be confirmed. He points out that this is a case where the misuse of delivery notes has been established. Therefore, he pleads that the additions made by the assessing authority be maintained. 4.. In view of the rival contentions putforth by the parties, we feel that three points set out hereunder are required to be decided in this case: (1) Whether the initiation of the proceedings under section 17(3) of the Act is justified in the facts of the present case? (2) Whether there is misus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipt of the notice keeps silent by not filing the objection or not requesting further time in that behalf, the natural presumption is that assessee has no grievance against the proposal contained in the notice. 6.. The assessee has no case that he has not received the pre-assessment notice in this case. He has also no case that he has not been granted adequate time to file the objections. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has received the pre-assessment notice. No explanation is forthcoming from the assessee as to why he has not field the reply to the said notice. Even before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal the assessee is not seen to have explained any reasons for not filing the reply to the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly signed and dated by the consigning dealer or his manager or authorised agent and the original of it shall be furnished to the assessing authority concerned, the duplicate shall be retained by the purchasing dealer or the person to whom the goods are delivered for transporting and the triplicate shall be retained by the consigning dealer." What the above sub-rule intends is to have a safeguard against clandestine transactions. Every dealer to whom the delivery note is issued has to produce its original to the assessing authority concerned and the non-submission of such used delivery note will result in penal consequences. 8.. If there is a loss, destruction or theft of delivery note, the same shall be immediately reported to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 250 obtained by the dealer from the assessing authority have not been produced. The above delivery notes were obtained by the dealer on March 15, 1985. These delivery notes were seen to have been used for the transport of the coconuts to Tamil Nadu. The declaration received from the sales tax check-post, Ariankavu shows that the dealer has used the delivery note No. 653220 on March 29, 1986 for the transport of the coconut to Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the officer made an inference that the dealer has utilised same delivery notes for the transport of the coconuts the purchase of which has not been accounted. The assessee has no case that the delivery notes obtained by him has been lost or destroyed in any manner. He has not produced the registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was involved Rs. 22,500 and that was included in the addition of Rs. 2,20,135. Of course, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has deleted the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 which deletion has been severely challenged by the Government Pleader. As far as we could see the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 is an independent addition unconnected with the alleged omission and suppression. That was an addition obviously for the misuse of delivery notes obtained on March 15, 1985 bearing Serial Nos. 653201 to 653250. In order to pinpoint the misuse the officer has given an instance showing the use of the delivery note No. 653220 on March 29, 1986. 11.. The only question now remains is to find out whether there is any basis for further addition of Rs. 2,20,135 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
