TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty was rightly levied - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 490/2011 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2016 - Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. For the Petitioners : R. B. Mathur, Tanvi Sahai For the Respondent : Alkesh Sharma ORDER 1. The instant petition is directed against order dt 9.7.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No.1601/2007/Sikar, whereby appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. The brief facts noticed are that on 23.10.2001 a survey was conducted at the business premises of the respondent assessee, who is a dealer of fire works, where the officers found that there was unaccounted stock and there was wide variation insofar as books are c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss stock/unaccounted stock, then nothing more was required to be proved by the AO. Learned counsel also contended that an order-sheet was drawn on 23.10.2001, on the day of survey, show cause notice was given and the assessee himself wrote a letter on the spot duly signed that he is ready, willing and prepared to pay the penalty and that there is an excess stock to the extent of ₹ 1,50,750/-. Learned counsel also produced the records of AO to show that the finding reached by the Tax Board that there are no signatures of the AO on the stock statement or of the assessee, is apparently wrong because there are signatures not only of the assessee but counter signed by the AO also on the same day i.e. 23.10.2001, and such stock statement is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent prepared at the time of survey. Learned counsel also contended that there was pressure and coercion on the assessee to surrender certain stock which was recorded and disclosed and such an order passed by the AO was not sustainable and has rightly been interfered by the Tax Board, and contended that the judgment of this court in the case of ACTO v. M/s Lining Bukram House (supra) is distinguishable. Learned counsel relied on judgments rendered by this court in M/s. Diamond Marketing Agency v. ACTO [STR 76/2006, decided on 13.9.2007], CTO v. M/s. Badri Lal Kedar Lal [STR 214/2011, decided 27.3.2015], CTO v. M/s. Dueful Laboratories [STR 542/2011, decided on 29.8.2016]. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of ₹ 45,225/- on 27.10.2001. 8. Admittedly, after the survey came to be conducted, there was no claim by the assessee before any senior administrative authority by any letter/affidavit bringing to the notice of the officers about pressure/coercion. It is only at the stage when an appeal was filed, that such a claim was made. 9. This court in the case of ACTO v. M/s Lining Bukram House (supra) has taken into consideration identical facts that if there is voluntary statement and not complained of to the higher authorities within a reasonable period, such a fact cannot be accepted in appellate proceeding later on and after a considerable long period. The facts are identical of the instant petition vis a vis the judgment supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
