TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... September 24, 1979 only and no transactions were noted in stock book for the month of October 1979. When the accounts were called for and checked up, they disclosed a total turnover of Rs. 4,85,264.18 against Rs. 4,83,264.18 shown by the assessee in A2 returns. The assessing officer rejected the accounts and the returns produced by the assessee as incorrect and incomplete and determined the assessment to the best of judgment. The assessing officer arrived at the total taxable turnover as follows: "Turnover on sale of starch and thippi as per accounts ... Rs. 4,85,264.00 Add: 5% for defects ... 24,263.00 Add: Suppressions noticed as revealed by anamath records explained above ... 3,47,988.00 --------------- 8,57,515.00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and sought to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and issued notice. After noting the objections of the assessee, the Joint Commissioner passed a cryptic order in the revision which is in the following terms: ".......The fact remains that several slips containing purchases and sales, etc., were discovered at the time of inspection and that they were not accounted for. Even at the time of hearing, the assessees were not able to prove that they were all accounted for in the books of accounts produced before the department although opportunity was given to the assessees to prove their case. 1, therefore, find that the stand taken by the assessing offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch the revisional authority is right in holding that the assessee was not able to prove that they were all accounted for in the books of accounts produced before the department. 4.. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides we are of the view that this is a typical case where the Joint Commissioner has exercised the power of revision in a casual manner. It is settled law that this Court under section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act exercises wide powers in the appellate jurisdiction against an order passed by the Joint Commissioner under section 34 of the Act, exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The assessee/ appellant before us is against the order of the Joint Commissioner. When we have gon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court has further held that it is an elementary requirement that they must have appropriate data to support any estimate that they make. Holding so, the Division Bench of this Court has further held as follows (at page 146): ".......In exercising the powers of revision, the Board is expected to concentrate its attention on the order which it seeks to revise. The order that is sought to be revised in the present case was that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. If there was any wrong reasoning in the said order, it is, of course, open to the Board of Revenue to rectify the error in reasoning by taking appropriate action. But in the present case the order of the Board of Revenue says very little about any wrong reasoning ....