2009 (3) TMI 915

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ridharan For the Respondent : Mr. Haja Nasiruddin Spl. Govt. Pleader (Tax) JUDGMENT (Delivered by K. Raviraja Pandian,J.) This is a tax case appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 06.09.2001, made in Suo Motu Revision No.604 of 1996. 2. The assessee was assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.9,71,182/- and Rs.1,37,777/- respectively fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12(3)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Thanjavur, who modified the assessment order by observing that there was no reason for making further two times addition as there was no omission of purchases or sales were found. He also deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. This order was regarded as illegal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the estimated sales suppression was arrived at Rs.27,126/- in respect of furniture and Rs.17,820/- in respect of cotton beds, which factum has been lost sight of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On the face of the defects pointed out as above and for not maintaining the proper books of accounts, the Assessing Officer had rightly rejected the accounts and he had estimated the sales supp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../-. The tax paid as per the returns is Rs.3,057/- and the difference is Rs.11,334/-, which is over and above 50% of the tax determined and tax paid. The statute provided imposition of penalty at 150% if the difference is more than 75%. That is what the Assessing Officer has done, which has been confirmed by the Joint Commissioner in Suo Motu Revision. 6. There is no illegality in the order of t....