9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One with regard to the legality and validity of three times addition of the estimated suppression and that too on the basis of the assessment relating to previous assessment year, and two, whether the penalty imposed under section 12(3)(b) on the estimated suppression is sustainable. The assessee is a dealer in sweets and savouries. The present case relates to the assessment year 1998-99. Place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be taken to the addition of three times and levy of penalty under section 12(3)(b) was also confirmed. Against that, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also confirmed the findings of the assessing authority. The learned counsel submitted that there was no basis for three times addition and under section 12(3)(b), penalty can be imposed only on a specific concealment and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iods as well, and estimated the turnover at 16 times the suppression disclosed in the slips. In the said case this court held thus: (page 314) "... the estimation of suppressed turnover on best judgment basis by the assessing officer was just and reasonable. Even if the assessing officer had adopted a different multiple, unless it was found to be so arbitrary and unreasonable, the court wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is three time suppression and following A.V.K. Marimuthu Nadar and Bros. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 47 STC 314 (Mad), we do not find any error in adopting the multiplier 3, in the facts and circumstances of the case. This question is answered against the assessee. As regards penalty, it shall be calculated on the actual suppression, which is Rs. 1,31,892. The tax case is partly allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
