TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 14,32,396.99 respectively. The assessee had handled grams both from registered and unregistered dealers and the assessee is liable to pay tax under the CST Act on such of the grams that have not suffered tax in the State of Tamil Nadu. Though the assessee reported the turnover as already stated, later on the assessee found that at the time of filing of its return for the assessment year 1980-81, an inadvertent error has crept in while making classification of the goods and the assessee has correctly brought the transaction during the course of assessment proceedings before the assessing officer. The assessing officer called for the accounts and checked the accounts and completed the assessment accordingly. While passing the order of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity the error that has crept in the filing of the return and found further that the assessee has co-operated with the assessing authority in finalising the assessment. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee, had not deliberately or wilfully suppressed the turnover and the omission to include the turnover in the return was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, and as soon as the mistake was realised the assessee had made good the mistake by bringing it to the notice of the assessing authority before the assessment was completed. The Appellate Tribunal in this view, cancelled the levy of penalty. The Revenue has filed this tax case revision against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4.. It is contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the return and the omission to include the turnover was bona fide. According to the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding that it was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee there was an omission to include a part of the turnover and the assessee has co-operated with the officer in finalising the assessment and therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has come to correct conclusion in cancelling the penalty. 6.. We have carefully considered the rival arguments advanced by the parties. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal is clear. The omission to include a part of the turnover in the sales of green gram was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee and the assessee brought to the notice of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns an inadvertent error has crept in resulting in non-disclosure of the said transaction in the return. The omission to include the turnover was held to be bona fide and as soon as the assessee realised its mistake, it made good the mistake by bringing the same to the notice of the assessing officer and the assessment was also done on that basis. 7. Let us now consider the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties. In Kalyani Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu (1984) 10 STL 151, this Court held that where an assessee has filed a return which was incomplete or incorrect, but, however, before finalising the assessment when the assessee has realised the mistake, it is open to the assessee to rectify the mistake by furnishing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
