1983 (3) TMI 249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal in so far as it vacated the order of penalty passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. For the assessment year 1975-76 the assessee reported a total turnover of Rs. 4,27,535.98 and taxable turnover of Rs. 99,843.63. The assessing authority, however, determined the total turnover at Rs. 4,70,289.57 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,42,902.58 on the basis of his best judgment. He al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to the learned Government Pleader, once the Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 20,000 towards possible suppressions then it should have automatically sustained the levy of penalty. The Tribunal has referred to the decision of this Court in Abdul Basheeth v. State of Tamil Nadu [1976] 38 STC 590 as supporting its stand that no penalty is leviable under section 12(3) on the facts of this cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ulging in making suppressions and therefore a lump addition of Rs. 20,000 was called for for the period subsequent to the date of the surprise inspection. In this case, the Appellate Tribunal has sustained the addition of Rs. 20,000 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal should be taken to have accepted the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Commissioner is justifiable and reasonable." Having upheld the addition of Rs. 20,000 towards the estimated suppressions, we do not see how the Tribunal can say that section 12(3) is not attracted. Even if the assessee has brought in the actual suppressions which were detected at the time of the surprise inspection in the return submitted by him, the estimated suppressions for the period sub....