9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , glass rods, tubes. The dispute itself relates to assessment year 2003-04. It appears that a survey of the business premises of the revisionist was undertaken on 31 May 2003. During the course of the survey, the team seized a diary and two loose papers which in the submission of the Department evidenced an intent to suppress the actual turnover of the assessee. No adverse inference was drawn by the Assessing Authority on the basis of the seized diary. However on the basis of the two loose papers which were found, the Assessing Authority proceeded to estimate the total evaded sales at Rs. 4,76,241/-. Additional tax liability was accordingly imposed upon the revisionist. Having not found success before the first appellate authority which on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revisionist submits that the rejection of books of accounts and enhancement of business turnover was clearly illegal. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that the Tribunal is the last forum for examining issues on facts. It is his submission that based on the material which was seized during the course of the survey, the assessing authority was fully justified in rejecting the books of accounts and undertaking a best judgment assessment. It was lastly urged that the Tribunal has already granted relief to the assessee in part and therefore also no occasion arises for this Court to interfere with the aforesaid order. While it is true that the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority, this Court cannot at the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or rejection of the books of accounts. More importantly and as this Court noticed above, the affidavits and the explanation which was submitted in respect of the two loose papers was not accorded any consideration. The Court notes that while the Act places the burden of proof in respect of special facts on the assessee, the burden to prove the occurrence of a taxable event lies solely on the shoulder of the revenue. This burden in the facts of the present case did not stand discharged. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Assessing Authority, the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly this revision shall stand allowed. The orders dated 8 June 2007, 28 May 2008 and 25 November 2010 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
