Post-inspection revised returns cannot erase unreconciled turnover suppression, though subsequent payment may moderate estimated additions and penalties remain enforceable.

Post-inspection revised returns do not by themselves cure earlier failures to maintain true and complete accounts where excess stock remains unreconciled. The notes explain that a disclosure made after detection, particularly when incomplete, may support assessment for purchase suppression, consequential sales suppression and estimated additions. Subsequent tax payment may mitigate the extent of an estimated addition, but does not establish that the earlier non-disclosure was bona fide. Unreconciled stock discrepancies and incomplete disclosure can also support penalty for suppressed turnover under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, where the dealer cannot justify the omission in a best-judgment assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revised return filed after an income-tax inspection protects a dealer from assessment for purchase suppression, consequential sales suppression, and estimated additions; (ii) Whether penalty for suppressed turnover was validly imposed.

Issue (i): Whether a revised return filed after an income-tax inspection protects a dealer from assessment for purchase suppression, consequential sales suppression, and estimated additions.

Analysis: The detected excess gold and silver stock was supported by inspection materials and remained unreconciled even after the revised return. A post-inspection disclosure does not establish that the prior failure to maintain true and complete accounts was bona fide. The Tribunal had independently evaluated the facts and reduced the equal additions from 100% to 10%, treating the subsequent tax payment as a mitigating circumstance. The precedents disallowing equal additions in the absence of material, or where full disclosure had been made, were inapplicable because the disclosure here was neither voluntary nor complete.

Conclusion: The assessment for purchase suppression, consequential sales suppression, and the reduced estimated additions was validly sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for suppressed turnover was validly imposed.

Analysis: The unreconciled stock discrepancy and incomplete post-inspection disclosure justified the finding of suppression. The statutory explanation prescribed penalty by reference to the suppressed turnover determined in best-judgment assessment, and the assessee failed to justify the omission.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was validly sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A revised return submitted only after detection does not negate willful suppression; it may justify moderation of estimated addition but does not preclude assessment or statutory penalty where suppression remains unexplained.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer seeking to rely on a post-inspection revised return must establish that the earlier non-disclosure was not willful; subsequent payment or disclosure may mitigate estimated addition but cannot erase proved and unreconciled suppression or bar penalty.

---