TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 27, 2005, stock variation noticed was 3,626 kgs. The offence was compounded by collecting compounding fee of Rs. 5,000. There is a controversy as to how the price was estimated for the suppressed quantity for the purpose of collecting compounding fee of Rs. 5,000. According to the statement of the Tribunal, compounding fee was collected by fixing the price of cashew kernel at Rs. 7 per kg. whereas the assessee's counsel contended that the price fixed was at the rate of Rs. 10 per kg. In any case, we do not think there is any need for us to go into this issue because compounding is not the dispute raised in these revisions. In fact, suppression in quantity was admitted by the assessee and compounding fee was paid after inspection. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der rule 38(5) on 80 per cent of the purchases under section 6(2) of the Act. The State has filed revision challenging the relief granted by the Tribunal. The assessee has filed revision contending that once the offence is compounded under section 74(1) no further addition in assessment is called for under section 74(2) of the Act. On facts there is no controversy inasmuch as the assessee itself does not canvass for acceptance of books of account and the return filed even though the assessee has a case that after compounding no estimation is permissible in assessment under section 74(2) of the Act. In other words, if section 74(2) assessment is permissible by rejection of books of account and by estimation of turnover because of the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the amendment it is specifically clarified that section 74(2) does not refer to assessment and amendment is only clarificatory. What was prohibited after compounding under section 74(2) even before amendment is further proceedings that could be taken against a dealer which obviously means proceedings further to detection of offence that led to composition. Assessment of the dealer is indispensable under the Act irrespective of whether the dealer is involved in any offence or not. Therefore further proceedings referred to in section 74(2) pursuant to detection of offence and compounding thereafter cannot refer to assessment proceedings which are permissible as provided under Chapter V. We, therefore hold that even prior to the amendme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the Tribunal are not justified in deviating from the actual sale figures adopted by the assessing officer from the assessee's own records which also stand proved with the data furnished by the Cashew Development Corporation. The next question pertains to challenge against the pattern of addition sustained by the Tribunal. The suppression estimated by the officer at 12 times the actual suppression detected on one inspection was above Rs. 25 lakhs. This was in fact reduced to around one third by the first appellate authority at Rs. 8,54,728.48. There is nothing to indicate from the Tribunal's order the basis of their estimation of suppressed turnover at Rs. 3 lakhs. Since we find no basis for the Tribunal to change the pattern ....