TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the business premises would not on its own form sufficient ground for 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 - revision allowed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 268 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2016 - Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J. For the Applicant : Krishna Agrawal For the Opposite Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same as also the resultant tax liability relating thereto. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that before the Assessing Authority and consequent to the notices issued, a detailed explanation was submitted by the assessee. In this explanation, the categorical case set up by the assessee was that the two loose papers did not relate to the business of the assessee. It was contended before the authorities that the two loose papers in fact related to one Rahul Bansal, who was the younger brother of the proprietor of the assessee. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the two loose papers ex facie did not evidence any sale or purchase effected by the assessee. Reiterating the submission urged before the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no adverse inference was drawn from the diary. That left the Assessing Authority only two loose papers, which as has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the revisionist, ex facie did not evidence a connection to the business of the revisionist. The two loose papers also evidenced payment in respect thereof by account payee cheques. The cheques were not shown to have been utilised or deposited by the revisionist in its accounts. More importantly the Court finds that not just the proprietor of the assessee but Rahul Bansal also had filed affidavits explaining the above position before the Assessing Authority. This material was not taken into consideration by the Assessing Authority. Neither the Assessing Authority nor for that matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
