Suspicion Is Not Evidence: Unverified tax information could not sustain a finding of suppressed sales.

Mere information from a sales tax officer, without the underlying books, entries, or supporting statement, is insufficient to prove suppression of sales. The Bombay HC noted that the only basis for the finding was an unverified report that the dealer's records showed despatches of nine trucks of oil while the assessees had accounted for only one truck. As the material relied on was not brought on record, it could at best raise suspicion and not evidence of probative value. The court therefore held that there was no material to sustain the finding of suppressed sales and answered the question in the negative.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was any material on record to support the finding that the assessees had suppressed sales to the Bombay dealer.

Analysis: The only basis for the finding was information said to have been received from the sales tax officer at Bombay that the Bombay dealer's books showed despatches of nine trucks of oil, while the assessees had accounted for only one truck. The books of the Bombay dealer and the entries themselves were not brought on record, nor was any statement of the officer who supplied the information produced. Mere information of this kind could at the highest create suspicion, but suspicion is not the same as evidence of probative value. Without the underlying entries or other supporting material, the information could not by itself sustain a conclusion that sales had been suppressed.

Conclusion: There was no material on record to support the finding of suppression of sales, and the question was answered in the negative.

---