Conversion charges claim rejected where transaction genuineness failed and related despatches were treated as suppressed turnover.

Authorities were justified in rejecting the assessee's claim that the amount received from the stated concern was conversion or job-work charges, because the alleged recipient was not shown to exist at the given address and no credible material established genuine conversion transactions. The bills and challans were not satisfactorily proved, and surrounding circumstances such as the absence of order records and unusual cash payments undermined the explanation. On the concurrent factual findings of the assessing, appellate and revisional authorities, no perversity was shown, so interference was not warranted. The disallowance of the alleged conversion charge and treatment of the related despatches as suppressed turnover were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the authorities were justified in disbelieving the assessee's claim that Rs. 6,32,665 received from M/s. Steel & Hardware Stores was conversion charge and in treating the corresponding despatches as suppressed sales.

Analysis: The assessee claimed that the disputed amount represented job-work charges, but the relevant concern was found to be non-existent at the stated address and no credible material was produced to establish its existence or the genuineness of the alleged conversion transactions. The bills and challans were not satisfactorily proved, the surrounding circumstances such as absence of order records and unusual cash payments weakened the claim, and the concurrent factual findings of the assessing authority, appellate authority and revisional authority were not shown to be perverse. In such a situation, interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the alleged conversion charge and the treatment of the related quantity as suppressed turnover were upheld against the assessee.

---