TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of money value of the goods and not on the quantitative basis, which has not at all been taken into consideration either by the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority in deciding or in coming to the conclusion in so far as the stock variation is concerned - thus in the present case, the deletion of 50% as ordered by the Assessing authority is upheld. The Second Respondent is directed to issue a fresh order calculating the tax liability and a proportionate penalty within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed in part. - W.P.No.42526 of 2006 And M.P.No.1 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Vaidyanathan And Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For the Respondents : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik (R1) Additional Government Pleader ORDER The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Impugned Order dated 28.03.2006 passed by the 1st Respondent in CTA. No.198/2003. 2. The Petitioner had suffered an assessment order in the hands of the 2nd Respondent vide order dated 26.06.2001 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. Certain addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nover of Rs.2,23,711/- stating that the appellant/dealer had not raised any argument. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/dealer, he had raised objections before the first appellate authority and the same had not been properly considered. As regards the entries in slip no.2 and 6, the explanation of the appellant that he had advanced an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- to his driver for the purchase of second hand van and to substantiate the claim, he had filed a xerox copy of the Day Book page to show that there was sufficient as a cash balance. But the explanation of the appellant is not acceptable. The availability of the cash balance as per accounts on a particular day could not be a ground to treat the transaction of sale recorded in the recovered records as an advance made for purchase of van. The appellant had conveniently omitted to furnish the details of van such as Make, Model, Owner etc. and he also had not offered proper explanation as to why the van was found to be not worthwhile after satisfactory verification of the vehicle and fixing its value for purchase. The appellant had fixed the value and also the date of purchase. What ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenance of accounts warrant further additions at equal the actual suppressions. Though the recovered records established incorrect maintenance of accounts and also suppressions, the first appellant authority is found to have sustained the assessment on a turnover of Rs.3,82,173/- towards probable suppressions. The relief granted by him is within his discretionary powers. There is also no warrant that the probable suppressions should only be at equal the actual suppressions. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the first appellate authority. The next item of diute is the general addition of Rs.5,000/ made by the Assessing Authority for the defects notied in the books of accounts. The assessment on the same had been set aside by the first appellate authority on the ground that the assessment on the actual suppressions and also the further estimations make such a further addition unwarranted. The reasons adduced by the first appellate authority for setting aside the addition of Rs.5,000/- are found to be proper and the same is upheld. In view of the discussions above, we find that the order of the first appellate authority is in order except in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to the correct figures taken out from the accounts of the appellants. The figures adopted in such workings were not at all incorrect as argued by the appellant in this case. Therefore, stock difference arrived in this case could not be treated as incorrect one. Therefore, assessment made on stock difference noticed in the place of business and its equal addition is sustained. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is also an order without applying principles of natural justice, as no reason was given for his findings. The authorities,who are all quasi judicial authorities, should exercise their function in the manner known to law. Having given a clear finding both on facts and on law, he has to give reasons to sustain such equal addition, especially when the Assessing Officer had not at all given any reason and simply had adopted equal addition system without any basis.Aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has gone into detail in so far as this point of stock variation is concerned and has come to a clear conclusion, which reads as follows: 11. Coming to the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits as the Impugned Order of the Tribunal is well reasoned. He further submitted that the Tribunal being the ultimate fact finding authority has arrived at a right conclusion and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is with regard to factual aspects which cannot be raised under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. We are of the view that petitioner has not made out any case for interference of the order of the Tribunal, upholding the order of the Assessing officer, by reversing the order of the Appellate Commissioner, in so far as addition of Rs.1,95,000/- and therefore to that extent we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. However, as far as addition of 50% of the Assessing Authority is contrary to the law settled by this Court in the Judgment stated supra. 7. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to order deletion of 50% as ordered by the Assessing authority. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The Second Respondent is directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
