TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer, by comparing the Statement of Sales as reflected in the books of account (Annexure-5 at page 61) with the Consumption account (at Page 45) treated the difference of the amount of Rs. 10,46,08,885.86 (-) Rs. 9,63,41,597 = Rs. 82,67,288.86 as the concealed sale turnover of iron ore. From the Tax Audited Report submitted to Income Tax Department (Annexure-4), it would be evident that cost of goods sold was clearly reflected as Rs. 10,46,08,886/-, whereas, from the Sales Statement, it was evident that said goods were sold at Rs. 9,63,41,597/-. Thus, the differential amount was not the concealed sales amount of the petitioner, but was the loss suffered by the petitioner on sale of iron ore, which is evident from the books of account of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modi, Adv. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in the instant writ application, has challenged the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Petition bearing Revision Case No. HZ 105 of 2012, wherein revision application has been dismissed and the Appellate Order dated 07.09.2012 including the Assessment Order dated 02.02.2011, wherein gross turnover of the Petitioner was enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,65,34,577.72 and, consequentially tax levied @ 4%, has been upheld. 3. Petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Sponge Iron and during processing and manufacturing of Sponge Iron, iron ore fines and coke as its by-products are produced, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of gross profit derived by the petitioner on sale of sponge iron, iron ore fines and coal ash, held that petitioner has shown less gross profit of Rs. 82,67,288.66 and the said amount was consequently treated as concealed sale figure of sponge iron and, accordingly, tax @ 4% was levied thereupon. 5. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, preferred statutory appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh, which was dismissed vide order contained in Memo No. 403 dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure-7). Thereafter, petitioner preferred statutory revision application before Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand being Revision Petition No. HZ 105 of 2012, which was also dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revisional Authority considered the said contention of the Petitioner. 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Assessing Officer enhancing the turnover of the petitioner was merely based on surmises and conjectures. It was contended that books of account of the petitioner was duly accepted by the Assessing Officer, but, despite thereof, concealment of sale was determined by reckoning one or the other figures from the books of account. It was further contended that there was no iota of evidence to demonstrate that petitioner has concealed its sales turnover. 8. Our attention was drawn to the audited books of account of the petitioner and it was submitted that in the same books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) M/s Girdhari Lal Nannelal Vs. The Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P., reported in (1976) 3 SCC 701. 9. Per contra, counsel for the State stated that petitioner, in its books of account, has not stated that it has suffered any loss, and, it is for the said reason that the Assessing Officer treated two different figures shown towards sale of iron ore as self contradictory and has treated the differential amount as concealed sales and levied tax thereupon. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of books of account of the petitioner, determined that petitioner has earned gross profit on sale of sponge iron of Rs. 2,15,33,524/- and has further earned profit on sale of coal and iron ore fines of Rs. 78,97,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer, on one hand, treated the loss suffered by petitioner as concealed sale amount of iron ore, and, on the other hand, by comparing the gross profit shown in books of account of the petitioner, and, by stating, inter alia, that gross profit has been shown less by the exact amount of Rs. 82,67,288/-, proceeded to levy tax again on the said amount by treating it as concealed sale. It appears that the Assessing Officer has completely misconceived itself while passing Assessment Order, as, on one hand, the loss suffered on sale of sponge iron was treated as concealed sale amount, and, on the other hand, exact sale figure was treated to be the concealed sale amount of sponge iron by stating, inter alia, that petitioner has shown less gross prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
