TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er ... 132.600 kgs. short. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the difference and not being satisfied with the reply, imposed a penalty of Rs. 13,000 under section 45-A(b) of the Act for the non-maintenance of true and complete accounts. The orders were confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The original petition is against these orders. 3.. The case of the petitioner is that they have explained the excess stock by their letter dated March 1, 1990 and subsequently filed affidavits from the parties stating that the owner of Sree Krishna Estate, Kottapuram. had brought 3,896 kgs. of rubber to the shop on February 28, 1990 and after unloading the goods they left for lunch, and this fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vits were produced on March 27, 1990 after a lapse of one month after the inspection. The claim of 8 parties regarding the excess stock of 3,896 kgs., is not bona fide and contrary to their intimation to the effect that the goods belonged to Sree Krishna Estate. From the affidavits, it is seen that except in one item wherein one Poulose, Pandarakundyil, as managing partner of Sree Krishna Estate, the others claimed ownership in their individual capacity giving different addresses. It is further submitted that the burden is on the petitioner to establish that the excess quantity found at the premises of the petitioner does not belong to them and that they have not discharged the same. 5.. I have heard the counsel and the Government Pleade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndependent bills for 8 persons on February 284 1990 and February 29, 1990, that fact has not been stated in the Intimation letter. When there are suspense slips available and issued to the quantity which are not billed, there is no reason why there is an omission to issue the suspense slip for such a large volume of rubber. Therefore, the stand of the first respondent that the intimation in the affidavits are after-thoughts and there is no acceptable reason for not issuing suspense slips, cannot be held to be an arbitrary view. Besides, when the claim of the whole quantity of 3,896 kgs. belongs to the owners of Sree Krishna Estate, the bills are shown in the separate names of 8 persons and different addresses were given excepting in one cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld create doubts, the benefit of which can be given to him. 8.. In this case, the petitioner had not produced any acceptable material or proof to the contrary. The material available on the record, namely, the shop inspection report, the suspense slips, and the failure on the part of the petitioner to explain the shortage on February 28, 1990 coupled with the discrepancies found in the materials adduced by the petitioner would only indicate that the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the onus. 9.. The Supreme Court in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Incometax [1956] 30 ITR 191; AIR 1956 SC 554 considered the question of failure to refer to the statements made in the affidavits. In the case before the Supreme Court, ca....