TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... local bodies. The assessment year is 1986-87. The petitioner has been originally assessed on a total taxable turnover of Rs. 1,90,945. Subsequently, the petitioner's business place was inspected by the officer of the enforcement wing on August 5, 1989 and the assessing officer revised the order under section 16 of the TNGST Act and determined the total turnover at Rs. 3,76,211. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. l,85,266 and also levied penalty of Rs. 8,244 under section 12(3) of the TNGST Act. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Madurai. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of assessment. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce with law and the same has to be set aside. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has correctly confirmed the addition, the equal addition and penalty levied by the lower authority and the Tribunal is correct in confirming the assessment made by the assessing authority and hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. The assessing officer has determined the total taxable turnover in the original assessment by an order dated May 31, 1991 at Rs. 1,90,945 as against reported turnover of Rs. 1,68,582. Subsequently inspec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst question of law in favour of the Revenue and as against the assessee. In respect of equal addition made for probable omission, there is no material available on record for warranting said addition and the assessing officer has not given any reason. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal have also without assigning any reasons, affirmed the order of the assessing officer. Therefore, the equal addition made by the assessing officer is not in accordance with law and no material is available for making such equal addition and the addition is not warranted and the same is deleted. Accordingly, the second question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and as against the Revenue. In respect of penalty ....