TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore that was made the basis for levying tax under the Act. - in view the facts of the case, the decision in the case of P.C. Ittymathew & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) [2000 (2) TMI 744 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] distinguished. In the balance sheet of the assessee, the aforesaid amounts were reflected, which did not find a place in the monthly returns filed by the assessee under the Act. The said entries are not disputed and in the light of the aforesaid admission, it is not a case of estimation of the suppressed turnover. It is a case of calculation of tax payable on the admitted turnover, which the revisional authority could very well do while exercising this power under section 63A of the Act. - when the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of survey, they noticed the total sales of the assessee was ₹ 35,000 per day under which event, the total turnover cannot be more than ₹ 1,25,00,000 whereas the assessee has filed a return showing ₹ 3,30,56,451 as the total turnover. The said discrepancy was brought to the notice of the assessee and she was asked to explain and her explanation was reduced into writing. The relevant portion reads as under: Q. Do you have anything else to state in connection with the discrepancies found during the course of survey. A. I shall offer a sum of ₹ 8 lakhs as additional net income for the assessment year 2006-07 in addition to the regular income and the return of income for the year 2006-07 shall be filed within 15 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve disallowed expenditure and hence, net-profit is enhanced by ₹ 8,00,000 but have not enhanced the sales turnover or purchase turnover. Though this amounts to suppression under the Income-tax Act, it is not suppression under the KVAT Act, 2003. The net-profit calculated is for the entire year 2006-07 but not for the month of March 2007. Hence, the estimation made for the month of March 2007 is not sustainable in the eye of law. After considering the aforesaid objections and the judgments relied on, the revisional authority held that the net income of ₹ 8,00,000 offered by the assessee to the income-tax authorities is the result of suppression of food and drinks and it is an undisclosed sale of food and drinks. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and has imposed tax, which is legal and valid and therefore, it declined to interfere with the order passed by the revisional authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has preferred this revision petition. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contends firstly that the addition made by the income-tax authorities cannot be the basis for addition under the Sales Tax Act. Secondly, before the revisional authority could revise the assessment order passed by the assessing authority, it must have material to show the suppression of sale without which it has no jurisdiction to revise the order. Thirdly, it was contended that even if it comes to the conclusion that there is suppression of turno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional net income for the assessment year 2006-07 in addition to the regular income and for the assessment year 2007-08 she will show a higher income taking into account higher sales noticed during survey and higher tax paid accordingly. Therefore, from the aforesaid admission, the only source of income of the assessee is from carrying on this hotel business and that she is having higher sales, which is not disclosed in the accounts and therefore, she has agreed to show additional net income of ₹ 8,00,000 and pay tax on that and she has committed herself in the next year to show higher sales and pay advance tax. In the light of the aforesaid categorical admission, there is no question of the sales tax authorities holding any enquiry a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of Reliance Motor Company Private Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1992] 84 STC 201 (Mad) where it was held that the Joint Commissioner, under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 had no jurisdiction to bring to tax for the first time, turnover which has allegedly escaped assessment, when it was neither the subject-matter of assessment proceedings nor appellate proceedings. Under such circumstances, the Joint Commissioner cannot exercise the power which the assessing authority should have exercised but did not. The power to bring an escaped turnover to tax is the power of the assessing authority under section 16 of the Act. In the instant case, in the balance sheet of the assessee, the aforesaid amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
