2008 (11) TMI 641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al was filed, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and before the Tribunal also, the assessee failed to succeed. Hence, the present appeal. In this revision, the following substantial questions of law have been framed. "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal being the highest fact-finding authority has erred by merely affirming the order of the first appellate authority by omitting to take into account the audited balance sheet and trading and profit and loss account duly filed during the hearing of the appeal before the first appellate authority and thus formed part of the appeal records?   (2) Whether the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that there was a huge loss merely based upon the rough trading ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... profit of five per cent is made for arriving at the estimated turnover. It is specifically recorded by the appellate authority that "the appellant did not furnish any details or reasons for the loss incurred by them". The Appellate Assistant Commissioner fairly noted that the gross loss and excess profit will not automatically lead to sales or purchase omission, but there must be some reason and that the assessee did not give any reason for the extremely low price at which they had sold the kerosene, when compared to the cost of purchase. As such, in the absence of documentary evidence or any explanation, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment. Before the Tribunal, the same grounds were reiterated. In these circums....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that sufficient documents were produced before the appellate authority. Hence, questions 1 to 3 are rejected. As regards the fourth question, the estimated sales turnover was arrived at only on the basis of the records produced by the assessee. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) reported in [2002] 125 STC 505 wherein this court has held as under (see page 508): "7. Though other sub-sections of section 12 were amended by the State Legislature subsequent to the date of the judgment in the case of Jayaraj Nadar & Sons [1971] 28 STC 700 (SC), section 12(1) and 12(2) have remained in the same form. The legislative intention therefore, except d....