TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember 2, 2003, for the assessment year 1991-92. The appellate authorities have concurrently held against the petitioner-assessee that the sale of hydraulic excavator by the petitioner-assessee, a registered dealer of stones, was taxable in the hands of the petitioner-assessee, and in the absence of the non-disclosure of such transaction in the books of accounts and returns filed by the assessee under the sales tax law, the assessing authority imposed tax, interest and penalty under section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the assessee by the impugned assessment order dated October 4, 1999. Being aggrieved by the said order of learned Tax Board, the petitioner-assessee is before this court by way of present revision petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the appellate authorities have concurrently found against the assessee, which were the findings of fact, that on account of a search under the Income-tax Act, and consequential orders passed under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, a copy of which was forwarded to the assessing authority under the sales tax law, it is only through that source that the assessing authority came to know about the said transaction of sale of hydraulic excavator by the petitioner-assessee during the assessment year in question on which a profit of Rs. 1,30,000 was recorded in the profit and loss account produced by the assessee before the Income-tax authorities ; and therefore, the said sale, being taxable sale, made by the assessee during the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y reference (page 205 in 18 VST):- "It is of significance to note that the conceptual and contextual difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Income-tax Act was lost sight of in Dilip N. Shroff's case [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) ; [2007] 8 Scale 304 (SC). The Explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The judgment in Dilip N. Shroff's case [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) ; [2007] 8 Scale 304 (SC) has not considered the effect and relevance of section 276C of the Income-tax Act. The object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98-99 of 2003, 4096 of 2004, 4316 of 2007, 4317 of 2007, 5277 of 2006, 675 of 2007, 1420 of 2007 and appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 21751 of 2007 are allowed and the excepted appeals shall now be placed before the Division Bench for disposal." I have heard learned counsels for the petitioner-assessee and Revenue at length and perused the judgments cited at Bar and impugned orders. This court is of the opinion that findings of fact arrived at by all the three authorities below about taxable sale of hydraulic excavator made by the assessee in the assessment year in question to its sister concern, which was recorded in the books of accounts and profit of Rs. 1,30,000 on the same was entered in the P and L account produced by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar as imposition of tax on the sale hydraulic excavator is concerned, are not required to be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction and to that extent the orders passed by the lower authorities deserve to be upheld. However, the question of penalty imposed on the assessee under section 16(1)(i) of the Act, which empowers the assessing authority to impose a penalty to the extent of double the amount of tax avoided by the assessee, who has concealed any transaction of sale or purchase from his books of accounts or registers required under section 21 of the Act is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has some force. If this transaction of sale of hydraulic excavator was not recorded in the books of acco....