9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said assessment years immediately. 2. The respondent accepted the returns and levied a composition fee of Rs. 2,000/- for each assessment year as per Section 72(1)(b) of the said Act. After accepting the returns, the respondent initiated proceedings for disallowing the claim of input tax credit and at the same time, treated the turnover of purchase as suppression and estimated the sales out of the said purchases and again the respondent treated the sales turnover reported in the returns as suppression. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32153 of 2016 challenging the order of assessment dated 30.8.2016 for the year 2014-15 on the ground that the respondent granted only five days' time, which was insufficient to file their ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnover as per the books and as per the returns, there is no justification to make a best judgment assessment or proceeding to reassess as an escaped assessment. According to him, in the absence of a finding of wilful non disclosure, levy of penalty invoking Section 27(3)(c) of the said Act does not arise. 6. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, by referring to the counter filed by the respondent, submits that the petitioner filed the returns only after an inspection was conducted and that the Assessing Officer was justified in making the estimation, as, in this case, it has come to light only after the inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials and that therefore, it is also an escapement of turnover. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns and deemed to have been presented within the time permissible for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the respondent - Assessing Officer cannot harp upon the fact that the returns were filed much after the inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials. 10. In such circumstances, it has to be seen as to whether a best of judgment could have been made. This issue has been answered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Ponnusamy Vs. Government of Madras [1968 (Vol.21) STC 71]. The question, which arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench was as to whether the Tribunal's view that the estimate of turnover of sales can be based both on the estimated suppressed purchases an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
