TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the personal computer of the assessee. The books of accounts were verified with the parallel accounts and sales suppression to the tune of ₹ 62,43,448/- as also purchase suppression coming to ₹ 68,49,788.14/- was detected. The assessee was issued notice with respect to the attempted evasion of tax. The assessee appeared before the Intelligence Officer and filed detailed objections and was also afforded an opportunity of hearing. 2. The Intelligence Officer by Annexure A order elaborately considered the objections of the assessee. Some of the objections with respect to duplication as also the turn over included in the opening balance being treated as sales consideration etc; were allowed by the Intelligence Officer. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to be evaded and impose penalty at two times of the computed amount. The assessee was again before the Tribunal which confirmed, all the findings of the Intelligence Officer as confirmed, by the first Appellate Authority. The one other issue which the assessee agitated before all the authorities was the issue of input tax credit with respect to the alleged purchase suppression. As on the other issues all the authorities concurred in rejecting the prayer of the assessee to grant input tax credit on the purchase turn over even when there was evidence of tax sufferance. The Tribunal however thought it fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to limit the penalty to one and half time the tax sought to be evaded. 3. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranting the levy of penalty at one and half times the tax exists? 4. The questions of law raised as 1, 2 and 5 are with respect to the alleged unaccounted sales and purchase suppression detected on inspection. Question No.3 relates to an assumed repetition of particular bill. Question No.4 is with respect to the apportionment of the suppressed turn over as against the goods for which tax was leviable at 4% and 12.5%. All these questions according to us does not amount to a question of law and are in the realm of facts. The unaccounted sales and the purchase suppression were detected on an actual inspection of the business premises of the assessee. The same was detected from a parallel account maintained by the assessee. The contention th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) KLT SN17(C.No.19) Mohammed Haji V State of Kerala held that input tax credit cannot be granted when the purchases are not reflected in the books of accounts. Hence, the said question has to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The last question raised is essentially one regarding the propriety of the Tribunal to have confirmed the penalty to one and half times the tax sought to be evaded. Normally, we would not have interfered with the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the penalty can be confined to the actual tax sought to be evaded. The above revision hence is partly allowed confirming the orders of the lower authorities but only modifying quantum of penalty to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
