2003 (2) TMI 450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1963 (for short "the Act"). 2.. The assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessment year concerned is 1994-95. The assessee filed return for the said year disclosing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,87,49,763.38 and Rs. 1,16,06,942 respectively. There was an inspection of the business premises of the assessee on May 26, 1995. The assessee had also compounded the offence and paid ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed by the department the Tribunal modified the estimate by sustaining the addition to the extent of 1½ times of the suppression found. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.   3.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no inspection of the business place of the assessee during the assessment year, in question and that the alleged suppression found in the inspect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in making the addition of 3 times the actual suppression found. The Government Pleader submits that the Tribunal had limited the addition to 1½ times the suppression as against three times made by the assessing authority. 5.. As we have already noted the only basis on which the addition of Rs. 13,99,314 made was the actual suppression of Rs. 4,66,438 found at the time of inspection an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee the assessing authority will be justified in adding the sum of Rs. 4,66,438 to the returned turnover. This is what the first appellate authority has done. The Tribunal, according to us, has wrongly relied on the decision of this Court in V.A. Augustaine and Co. v. State of Kerala [1975] 36 STC 257. If as a matter of fact an inspection was conducted during the assessment year in question and ....