TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was a reasonable basis for him to arrive at the said conclusion, especially when the assessee did not offer any satisfactory explanation in spite of issuance of notice - Assessment orders refer to notices issued to the assessee and they also record the fact that no satisfactory explanation had been offered by assessee to make out a case that there was some special reason for which sale of sweets, namkeen etc. on 9th and 10th March, 2000 was exceptionally more – Once AO had rightly come to the conclusion that the books of accounts were not properly maintained and were not reflecting each and every transaction - Once it is found that with some oblique motive, effort was made to show lesser sale proceeds than the actual, the orders imposing penalty can not be questioned - Therefore, This court is not inclined to interfere even with the quantum of penalty - The impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is just and proper - Appeals are dismissed – Decided against assessee. - Civil Appeal Nos. 4465-4468 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.22912-22915 of 2009) - - - Dated:- 9-4-2014 - Anil R. Dave And Dipak Misra,JJ. JUDGMENT Anil R. Dave, J. 1. Leave granted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of the appellant-assessee and even on that day it was found by the officers that there was discrepancy in cash on hand and cash as per books of accounts. Moreover, they also found that there was discrepancy in stock as the actual stock and stock as per books of accounts were not same. Thus, once again it was found that the books of accounts maintained by the appellant-assessee were not in order. In spite of issuance of notice and giving hearing to the appellant-assessee firm, sufficient explanation was not provided to the Assessing Officer and therefore, assessment for Assessment Year 1999-2000 was made under Section 23(3) of the Act. As the Assessing Officer had come to a conclusion that correct books of accounts had not been maintained, penalty was also imposed upon the assessee by assessment order dated 31.12.2001 for the said assessment year. Similarly, for the Assessment-Year 2000-2001 also, the books of accounts had not been maintained properly. In view of the said fact the Assessing Officer had taken into account figures of sales arrived at by him for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and had added 10% thereon as that was considered to be a normal growth of the business in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee were not correct and the facts found on those selected days when there were surprise visits by the officers of the Department were normal, i.e., the assessee was every day getting the same amount by way of sale of eatables. Moreover, adjustments regarding the amount of tax recovered had not been made while calculating the estimated sales. 6. For the aforestated submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee had submitted that the judgment of the High Court, confirming the assessment orders, should be quashed and set aside and even the orders imposing penalty should be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue had submitted that it was apparent that the appellant-assessee was not correctly showing all transactions in his books of accounts. The said fact could be very well seen when the representatives of the Department had visited the place of business of the assessee on 9th and 10th March, 2000 and on 24th October, 2000. The sale proceeds, which had been meticulously recorded on those two days in accounting year 1999-2000 were Rs.2,13,974/- and Rs.1,98,009/- respectively whereas total sales for the said year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts was much less than the calculations arrived at by the Assessing Officer. (ii) It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer did not jump to a conclusion without any rhyme or reason. The Assessing Officer had called upon the assessee to explain the difference but the assessee could not or did not give sufficient explanation as to how the total sale on the basis of the average daily sale arrived at by the Assessing Officer was not correct. One can very well presume that in case of a dealer dealing in eatables, and specially sweets and namkeens, on a particular day like a holiday or on account of some festivity, total sale can be more than other days. For example, sale would normally be more on Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays because more people would be visiting such eateries. In the instant case, had those two days, when business premises of the assessee was inspected and the sale proceeds were recorded, been some special days, the assessee could have placed those special facts before the Assessing Officer, but nothing of that sort was done. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer had rightly come to the conclusion that the books of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
