TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the figures from the table available in the assessment order, the total products sent on departmental delivery note had a value of ₹ 3,50,01,765/- between October and March. The sale conceded as disclosed in the list available in the assessment year is ₹ 3,21,54,750/-. The difference comes to ₹ 28,47,015/-. The addition hence could be only of ₹ 28,47,015/-. In the facts and circumstances, we do not think there need be any further addition on lower sales reported, other than the difference arrived at from the value disclosed and the sale conceded - we affirm the addition to the turnover of ₹ 4,08,81,975/- with an equal addition as also the purchase return of ₹ 65,10,575/- and the under-valuation of sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was confirmed for probable omissions and suppression. The addition of purchase return was confirmed by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the one time addition as confirmed by the first appellate authority of the stock variation and also affirmed the addition made on purchase return. With respect to the undervaluation found, the Tribunal deleted the addition made of ₹ 69,03,320/-. 3. The assessee's revision raises the question of law as to whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the alleged stock variation merely for reason that departmental delivery notes were not issued. 4. The modus operandi of the business as submitted by the learned Counsel, is that the assessee had supplied the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department under the sales tax enactment. This continued till September of the assessment year 2010-11. The stock variation was detected on that basis and the same has been reckoned for best judgment assessment in making an addition of ₹ 4,08,81,975/- and a further one time addition for probable omissions and suppression. We have already rejected the assessee's revision against such addition and estimation made. The addition made on purchase return has also been confirmed by the Tribunal. We are only concerned with the reporting of sales which even according to the Assessing Officer, is between October to March of the assessment year. The assessee is said to have used departmental delivery notes after the inspection was condu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nceded in the return or as disclosed from the delivery notes was adopted. This would be akin to accepting the contention of the assessee that the entire stents transferred on delivery notes in a month is not sold in that month itself. The assessee has not produced any substantiating material to support the same. We have hence taken the value of the delivery notes from October to March and the same being higher than the sales conceded in that period, the difference is adopted. Computing the figures from the table available in the assessment order, the total products sent on departmental delivery note had a value of ₹ 3,50,01,765/- between October and March. The sale conceded as disclosed in the list available in the assessment year is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
