Reasonable opportunity and proof of genuine dealers govern tax additions based on statements and purchase exemptions.

Access to a clearing agent's statement was treated as adequate where the assessee was allowed to inspect it and no timely objection or prejudice was raised; the plea of denial of reasonable opportunity was rejected. Wheat turnover was sustained in tax because the assessing authority relied on the statement, assessment records and surrounding materials, and the assessee had not earlier disputed the consignment link. Exemption on purchases was also withdrawn because the dealers were found fictitious and non-existent, and the assessee failed to prove that the suppliers were real and existing persons. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the assessment additions and withdrawal of exemption were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity because a copy of the clearing agent's statement was not furnished; (ii) Whether the turnover of wheat was lawfully brought to tax on the basis of the clearing agent's statement and the assessment records; (iii) Whether exemption could be withdrawn in respect of purchases from dealers found to be fictitious and non-existent.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity because a copy of the clearing agent's statement was not furnished.

Analysis: The assessee was permitted to peruse the statement and note down the relevant extract. No contemporaneous objection was raised before the assessing authority that the opportunity was inadequate or that prejudice had been caused by non-supply of a copy. The plea of denial of opportunity was therefore not available at the revisional stage.

Conclusion: The contention of denial of reasonable opportunity was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the turnover of wheat was lawfully brought to tax on the basis of the clearing agent's statement and the assessment records.

Analysis: The order of assessment showed that the assessee had not raised before the assessing authority the specific plea that the consignment referred to by the clearing agent did not relate to him. The assessing authority relied on the statement, the assessment file, and the surrounding materials to conclude that wheat had been imported and that part of the turnover had not been properly disclosed.

Conclusion: The addition of the wheat turnover was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether exemption could be withdrawn in respect of purchases from dealers found to be fictitious and non-existent.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the concerned dealers were fictitious, their names and addresses did not exist, and mere registration of names with the department did not establish their genuineness. The burden lay on the assessee, who claimed exemption, to show that the purchases were from real and existing dealers.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of exemption was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed on all issues that were substantively examined, and the assessment additions and withdrawal of exemption were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee is given access to a statement and raises no timely objection, the plea of prejudice from non-supply of a copy is unavailable, and exemption claims must be proved by showing that the selling dealers were real and existent.

---