TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate purported to have been issued by the Village Officer to the effect that there was a flood in the area, which resulted in loss of documents. The resultant situation is that the assessee is unable to produce any document showing what exactly was his gross profit. On the other hand, admittedly in the inspection, certain bills were recovered, which disclosed the average gross profit of 80% and its genuineness is not disputed. In such a situation, we are not prepared to find fault with the Revenue in estimating the turnover tax by taking the gross profit as disclosed in the bills that were recovered. Further, the assessee cannot have any grievance, since the gross profit has now been reduced to 50% against the declared gross profit of 41.32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale bill was seen issued from the place of incidence. It is also stated that day book, ledger, sale book etc., were not produced either at the time of inspection or at the time of verification of the books of accounts. On Verification of the statement of accounts, it was revealed that the gross profit reported was 41.32%. On verification of some of the bills recovered, it was disclosed that the average rate of gross profit was 80%. In such circumstances, after completing the procedural formalities, the Intelligence Officer added 80% towards the purchase price of the goods sold during the relevant period and on that basis the sales turnover was estimated. Accordingly, double the amount of turnover tax on the suppressed turnover of sales wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and ineffective. Therefore, we reject the first contention raised by the learned counsel. 6. The second contention raised was mainly with respect to the manner in which the gross profit was arrived at 80%. According to the learned counsel, this percentage was arrived at merely with reference to few bills that were recovered during inspection. It is his case that turnover for an assessment year cannot be quantified on the basis of some bills that are recovered and these bills alone cannot be the material, on the basis of which penalty cannot be levied. In this context, the learned counsel invited our attention to the judgment of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hotel Ashok Bhavan [2013] 60 VST 79 (Mad) wherein it is held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The resultant situation is that the assessee is unable to produce any document showing what exactly was his gross profit. On the other hand, admittedly in the inspection, certain bills were recovered, which disclosed the average gross profit of 80% and its genuineness is not disputed. In such a situation, we are not prepared to find fault with the Revenue in estimating the turnover tax by taking the gross profit as disclosed in the bills that were recovered. Further, the assessee cannot have any grievance, since the gross profit has now been reduced to 50% against the declared gross profit of 41.32%. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the orders justifying interference. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
