9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les of natural justice and as against the 11 times addition made raising the following questions of law:- "1. Whether the Tribunal is right in denying opportunity of cross examination of third party purchasers when the dealer denied the transactions in reassessment proceedings, under the circumstances the employee of the dealer stolen away cash bill books cheque books etc., and the dealer gave complaint to the police and to the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Neyveli ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in confirming eleven times addition when the entire alleged sale bills were taken and estimated in reassessment proceedings ?" 2. A perusal of the order of the re-assessment shows that the assessee was originally assessed on the taxable turnover of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the First Appellate Authority viewed that the assessee was in the habit of selling old iron by issuing duplicate bills. The First Appellate Authority held that the assessee had not produced the books of account for rechecking and the assessee issued duplicate bill Nos.1903 dated 03.04.1989, 1954 dated 17.05.1989, 1659 dated 12.07.1989 and 1651 dated 19.07.1989. Thus Bill Nos.1904 to 1953 would have been issued between 03.04.1989 and 17.05.1989. With that view, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment. The assessee went on further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. The assessee contended that one of its employees had taken and ran away with the books of accounts and police complaint was preferred agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 511 dated 10.08.1989. However, the Assessing Officer presumed that the assessee had not produced sale bill No.1651 dated 19.07.1989, which was issued to Salem dealer and Bill Nos.1659, 1954 and 1903 issued to Chidambaram dealer. Taking these two bills, the Assessing Officer estimated the actual suppression at Rs.1,02,625/- and made further addition at 11 times. This order of the Assessing Officer was sustained by the Appellate Authorities. 7. We find that in the reassessment proceedings, the Officer without disclosing the basis, embarked on assessing the turnover as an escaped assessment. It is no doubt true that the assessee had not produced books of accounts before the Officer, for which, the assessee had given valid reason that because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
