1994 (7) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in law in holding that the turnover, which was not accounted for in the books of accounts, was Rs. 1,80,000? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, material and evidence on record, there is warrant in law to hold that the estimate of Rs. 1,80,000 of unaccounted turnover was legal and sound? (c) That the ratio of the decision of Esufali's case was correctly applied by the Board of Revenue? (d) Whether the estimate of turnover can be said to be arbitrary, excessive and without any basis and material on record? (e) Whether the imposition of penalty under section 17(3) at Rs. 1,000 and under rule 69A at Rs. 70 was justified and legal?   2.. The accounting year in question is from Diwali 1977 to Diw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubsequently was not accepted by any of the statutory authorities. 4.. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no rational basis for the best of judgment assessment or the addition made by the Sales Tax Officer. Learned counsel points out that for the period of three months and three days of the year preceding the raid, the transactions which were not accounted for were only of the value of Rs. 45,811 and it would not be reasonable on the part of the Sales Tax Officer to believe that even after the raid, there were similar suppression of transactions in the account books. In this connection, our attention is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Esufali's case [1973] 32 STC 77. That was the case o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....timate made may be an over-estimate or an under-estimate. But that is no ground for interfering with his 'best judgment'. It is true that the basis adopted by the officer should be relevant to the estimate made.............The assessee cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own illegal acts. It was his duty to place all. facts truthfully before the assessing authority. If he fails to do his duty, he cannot be allowed to call upon the assessing authority to prove conclusively what turnover he had suppressed. That fact must be within his personal knowledge. Hence the burden of proving that fact is on him. No circumstance has been placed before the assessing authority to show that the assessee's dealings during September 1, 1960, to Sept....