TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax. The orders passed for the three years were dismissed in the first appeal stage. In the second appeal the Appellate Tribunal sustained actual suppression and levied penalty at 50 per cent of the tax due for the assessment year 1992-93 and for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The Appellate Tribunal held that the quantum of penalty will be with reference to the slab falling under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Hence the present revision. 2.. Mr. A. Thiagarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the assessee did only labour work and even at the time of inspection he has stated that he was doing labour work for others and though affidavits were filed before the Appellate Tribunal, the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in [1976] 38 STC 455 (A.S. Ganapathy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu), wherein it was held that the onus of proving the transactions in anamath records, rests on the assessee. The learned first appellate authority had also dealt with this aspect in detail with reference to materials recovered during inspection and also the contentions raised by the appellants. After examining the issue in detail, the learned first appellate authority held that in the instant case, the appellants failed to provide any evidences from the so-called customers, such as Dr. Govindarajulu, Mrs. Vairammal and Rajagopalan, that they had undertaken only the labour works for them. Taking note of the incriminating records recovered from the business premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e omissions, since slips, incriminating records were recovered for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95 pertaining to the appellants and no other specific materials were available to show that the appellants had indulged in similar unaccounted transactions, and the entire transactions figuring in anamath records were taken as sales suppression, we are of the view that equal time addition for probable omissions is not warranted. The equal time addition for probable omissions is excessive, considering the facts of the case. For the reasons stated above, we are of the unanimous view equal time addition of Rs. 9,15,476 is not warranted and requires to be deleted. Accordingly, the above point is answered." The relevant portion of regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner. Only in September 1997, the affidavits obtained from Tvl. Govindarajulu, Vairammal and V.S. Rajagopalan were filed and therefore, there is merit in the contention of the State Representative that the affidavit filed is only an afterthought and therefore they are not acceptable. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically held that the appellants failed to discharge their initial onus to let in satisfactory evidence to prove that the transactions are not sales. Thus we find that the conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal are on appreciation of facts and there is no case of non-application of mind in passing order while considering the additional affidavits filed under regulation 12 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
