TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deep freezers, mineral water dispensary and works contractor in supply, installation and commissioning of air-conditioners. Upon processing of books of account and evidences, the assessing authority concluded final assessment under section 12(3) and section 17(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") on May 25, 2005. By and large, the book figures were accepted in the final assessment under the Act. The succeeding assessing authority observed after verification of assessment records that there is suppression of sales turnover of goods as first dealer goods assessable to tax at the hands of the assessee as suppressed sales turnover of air-conditioners, deep freezers, air coolers, etc., for Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02 and as on March 31, 2003. Therefore, he proceeded to hold that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to claim that the gross profit earned by it is less than 30 per cent. Therefore, gross profit adopted at 30 per cent. is based on the gross profit declared by the assessee itself and local purchase of air-conditioners, deep freezers, mineral water dispensary and sale of air-conditioners, etc., was made the basis for addi tion. Accordingly, he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,84,91,110 as the total tax payable. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal. The first appellate authority held that there is no correlation between the opening stock purchases, closing stock and the sales disclosed by the appellant relating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time of hearing of the appeal, as to why 30 per cent of gross profit was reckoned towards local registered dealer purchases, the reply was, under misconception that they are liable to claim the benefit of ross profit at 30 per cent on par with the labour and like charges as enumerated under rule 6(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules and they had claimed deduction towards gross profit. Therefore, the first appellate authority held the assessing authority in the impugned reassessment proceedings, has not made out a case for adopting the gross profit at 30 per cent, as the same cannot be gathered from the material available on record. He further held, the non-disclosure of taxable sales in this case could bes attributed to mis-classification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....diction in setting aside the said order and restoring the order of the assessing authority. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue submits, when the assessee itself has claimed 30 per cent as the profit in respect of the second dealer sales and when that is taken as the basis for addition, the appellate authority committed a serious error in interfering with the said order based on admission. It is that order which is set aside and restored by the revisional authority. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. From the aforesaid facts, it is not in dispute that 30 per cent, which is the addition, is based on the claim of the assessee representing the profit on second dealer sales. It is not an actual profit earned by it. In or....