TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to substantiate such contention - the addition made on interstate purchase at the GP as computed by the Assessing Officer is sustained. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the estimation on the local purchases when there was not even a single evasion or undervaluation detected with respect to such local purchase and sales? - Held that:- Though a explanation was put forth for reason of there being no substantiating evidence, we have declined deletion of addition with respect to interstate purchases; despite which it is to be noticed that the explanation was a plausible one - there being no evidence to indicate a suppression of local purchases, the addition made on that count is not proper - decided in favor of assessee. De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r not? 2. The assessee, a dealer in chicken, had filed the returns for the year 2005-2006. The audit team visited the premises of the dealer and found that the purchase disclosed in the returns were far lesser than the purchase seen from the Delivery Notes recovered. The interstate purchase conceded in the annual return was ₹ 1,73,14,235.57. The Delivery Notes disclosed a total interstate purchase of ₹ 1,91,34,759/-. The turnover as per the Delivery Note was taken, to which an addition was made of G.P. at the rate of 5.16%. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the assessee had in fact sold the purchased goods at a price lower than that seen from the Delivery Notes. It is submitted that as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not proper. We hence direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made to the local purchases at 10.8%, which was the suppression seen in the interstate purchases. We answer the second question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. The third question is with respect to the denial of input tax credit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the cancellation of registration with respect to the three dealers was after the purchase made by the petitioner. It was in the subsequent year in fact. It is contended that the petitioner had made the purchases based on the registration granted by the Department. The Department is to be found fault with for granting registration to dealers, who are not genuine. We ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
