TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was not required under law to grant the petitioner any opportunity to verify the alleged variations in the presence of the Assessing Authority nor was it bounden upon the Tribunal to make such verification its own as has now been required by the assessee - revision dismissed. - O.T.Rev.Nos.178, 179 & 180 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2016 - Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Devan Ramachandran, JJ. Harisankar V. Menon and Smt. Meera V. Menon for the petitioner Mohammed Rafiq, Senior Government Pleader, for the respondent ORDER Ingenuity knows no bounds and nowhere is it more manifest than in attempts to evade taxes. The methods used are sometimes so inventive, cunning and astute that one would have no other opt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted. However, once the assignment reaches the destination, a lesser quantity and value is written in the original and the carbon impression is obtained in triplicate of the delivery note, after which the original carbon impression is discarded. 6. The Intelligence Wing, on its verification, assessed the suppression to be ₹ 1,00,33,433/- with a tax effect of ₹ 4,01,337/-. The assessee did not contest this and admitted the offence of not maintaining true and correct books of accounts and compounded it by paying the compounding fee and the tax assessed. In the audit assessment the Assessing Authority found that the suppression of the turnover for the month of August 2007 and such suppressions were also seen for the month of Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions raising the following substantial questions of law: A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has not the appellate tribunal erred in sustaining the alleged suppression against the revision petitioner? B. Ought not the Tribunal have held that the additions to the turnover are made purely on surmises or guess work without any positive evidence as regards suppression? C. Ought not the Tribunal have directed the assessing authority to grant the revision petitioner an opportunity to verify the alleged variations in the presence of the assessing authority or ventured to do such vertification on its own, being the highest fact finding authority under the statute? 9. We have examined the questions raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Statute and that the orders relating to suppression and addition of the actuals are completely legal and imposed under the powers available to them under the Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders of the Tribunal and that of the statutory authorities do not suffer from any error in jurisdiction or mistake so as to entitle a re-examination at the hands of this Court. Since the suppression was suspected against the petitioner and the additions were made based on the documents and admissions of the assessee, we hold that the Tribunal and the authorities below have acted fairly and that the impugned orders are legally correct and sustainable. 11. At the time when the revisions were heard, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressions practised. That apart, there is admission by the appellant with regard to the suppressions practised, which for the reasons discussed above, appears to be voluntarily made. Hence we do not think that there was any denial of natural justice to the appellant as contended by it. When appellant hesitates to produce/submit material evidence to prove that there were no suppressions as found by the Assessing Authority, we do not think that perusal of assessment records as such would better the case of the appellant. 12. It is obvious that the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the assessee for extremely valid reasons. The Statute does not provide that the aseessee be given an opportunity to verify the variance in the presence of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and materials that they intend to rely on in defence. It is open to the assessee under the provisions of the Act to establish that no suppression has been committed by them and if they are unable to do so, it would then be within the province of the Assessing Authority under Section 24 of the Act to reject the returns and complete the assessment to the best of his judgment. This power of the Assessing Authority cannot be fettered or shackled in any manner by super-imposing a limitation that the suppressions will have to be established or quantified only in the presence of the assesseee or that it can only be after giving the assessee an opportunity to verify the basis of such quantification made and ordered by the Assessing Authority. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
