9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29, 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the KAT") confirmed the order of the assessing authority dated January 5, 2006 vide order No. KST.AP 91/05-06 framing the following question of law for consideration of the court: (1) In the fact and circumstances of the petitioner's case whether authorities below are right in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has purchased copra from APMC yard, Gubbi and suppressed the same while selling it? (2) In the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case whether authorities below and the Tribunal are right in accepting the purchase receipts of copra without verifying the signature of the petitioner and without supplying those materials to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra from APMC yard and paid market cess of Rs. 7,375 and suppressed the said transaction to the Department in not showing the turnover amount of the said transaction when he had submitted the returns to the assessing authority. Therefore the finding recorded in contentious issues that arose for consideration before the assessing authority and appellate authority are erroneous in law. Hence, he would submit that substantial question of law framed in Nos. (1), (2) and (3) in the revision petition would certainly arise for consideration of this court as the Tribunal without application of mind to the facts of the case and evidence on record has accepted the finding of fact recorded by the assessing authority, who has stated that there is suppr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, has confirmed the order passed by the assessment authority by recording valid and cogent reasons and therefore she submits that questions of law framed do not arise for consideration of the law. With reference to the above rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we have carefully examined whether the substantial questions of law framed in this revision petition would arise for our consideration and the same required to be answered in this petition. Our answer to the aforesaid points are that none of the substantial questions would arise for consideration for the following reasons: It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has purchased copra during the months of July, September and November 1999 and he has paid market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and conduct of the assessee in not choosing to file objections despite service of proposition notice and not filing no objections and producing any documents, the assessing officer considered and passed the best judgment assessment order and that cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority has exercised discretionary power and quantified the amount of suppressed turnover to Rs. 24,33,750 and the same has been confirmed by the KAT and therefore, the same cannot be termed as erroneous and in our view, none of the question raised would arise for our consideration in this case. We are in agreement with the impugned order passed by the KAT. Hence, revision petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
