Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (11) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by himself on the basis of Estimate Bills and credit note book amounting to Rs. 43,80,076.00 as suppressed sales and further one time addition of equal value, is correct in the eyes of law ? And whether one time addition is based on any material on hand? 2. Whether the DCCT (Audit) 2 DVO Kalaburagi is correct in treating the stock difference noted by the Enf. Authority, amounting to Rs. 27,82,250.00 as suppressed T.O. and whether addition of Equal value to the T.O. is correct when it was not based on any material on hand ? 3. Whether penalty levied for Rs. 1,00,631.00 U/s 72(2) of the DCCT (Audit) - 2 Kalaburagi is correct, when the petitioner has paid entire amount of tax payable as per the return of Sept. 2013 filed well in the time i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by enhancing the turnover equal to the suppressed turnover detected by the Inspecting Authority for the month of September, 2013 in addition to the levy of penalty and interest. Further, 10% turnover was added to the reported turnover for the tax periods April, 2013 to March 2014. 3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Authority who modified the order of the prescribed authority deleting the addition of 10% turnover to the reported turnover to the tax periods April, 2013 to March, 2014 (except September, 2013). In all other respects the order of the prescribed Authority was confirmed, being aggrieved the Assessee has preferred the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru in STA .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w of the admission made by the Assessee towards the suppression of sales turnover, the same cannot be challenged by the Assessee subsequently. The shortage found in the closing stock would indicate that the Assessee has not disclosed the correct turnover and the stock which was liable to tax has not been accounted. The tax liability ought to have been escaped if the same was not detected by the Enforcement Authority. Hence, the Prescribed Authority while concluding the assessment through best judgment is empowered to make addition of the suppressed turnover equal to one time as now made for the month of September, 2013. Hence, he submits that no interference of this Court is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. We have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icated the sales made by the Assessee without accounting the same in the regular books. The difference in the shortage of closing stock also demonstrates the Assessee not keeping the proper books of accounts and the unaccounted sales without issuing sale invoices, which would otherwise, liable to payment of tax. The tax liability to which the Assessee is liable has come to light only on the inspection of the business premises conducted by Enforcement Wing, otherwise would have been a loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. The conduct of the Assessee in not maintaining the regular books of accounts would be good ground for the Prescribed Authority to enhance the turnover including the deficit in stock noticed at the time of inspection. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee and in favour of the Revenue. As regards the question No.(3), we are of the considered view that penalty levied at Rs. 1,00,631/- under Section 72(2) of the Act requires to be re-considered in view of the return filed by the petitioner for the tax period September, 2013 disclosing the sales turnover detected by the enforcement authority. Hence, penalty under Section 72(2) of the Act has to be redetermined by the Assessing Authority. Only on this point, we remand the matter to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the penalty levied under Section 72(2) of the Act. 12. The Prescribed Authority shall consider the return submitted by the Assessee and shall re-determine the penalty aspect in accordance with the Section 72(2) of the Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates