TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal'). By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the appeal preferred by the Assessee against an order dated 12th December, 2003 passed by the First Appellate Authority (hereafter the 'FAA') which in turn dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee impugning the assessment order dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the Assessing Officer ('AO') pertaining to the Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts leading to the present appeal are as under:- 2.1 During the relevant year, the Appellant (Assessee) was engaged in the business of distribution of paints and other products on behalf of M/s Asian Paints Ltd. as a consignment sale agent. The Assessee has placed a copy of the Consignment Agreement wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 2.4 On the basis of the aforesaid findings/observations, the AO proceeded to frame a best judgment assessment by enhancing the declared sales by 10% and assessing the tax accordingly. Thus, the sales were enhanced by Rs. 2.5 crores. Penalty proceedings were directed to be initiated separately. 2.5 The Assessment order was challenged before the FAA on several grounds. The Assessee asserted that it was never confronted with the loose papers, documents, registers, diaries, notebooks etc. as recorded in the Assessment order. The Assessee also contested the finding of the AO that the Assessee could not produce the relevant record to explain the documents with which the Assessee was confronted. The Assessee contended that it had produce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the stocks in excess of Rs. 2.49 lacs at the business premises at Patparganj could not be explained despite several opportunities. The Assessee's appeal before the Tribunal also met the same fate. 3. The principal contention urged on behalf of the Assessee is that its contentions have not been considered and neither the assessment order nor any of the Appellate orders indicate any specific discrepancy except two challans amounting to Rs. 1250/- on the basis of which the Assessee's books have been rejected. It is further contended that the Assessee was confronted with these challans on 28th January 2000, which was the last date of hearing and thus, was not afforded adequate opportunity to respond to the same. It is further contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. The Assessee was entitled to receive commission on the sales but was also responsible for recovery of the sale proceeds from various dealers. Any amount outstanding from the dealers over 45 days was recoverable from the Assessee by deducting the same from the commission payable to the Assessee; the Assessee was, essentially, a del credere agent of Asian Paints Ltd. This is not disputed by the AO. In absence of any purchases by the Assessee, it is doubtful whether a Trading Account could be prepared. At any rate, the Assessee was not obliged to maintain one. The AO has enhanced the turnover principally on the basis that the Assessee had failed to produce the Trading Account as on 3rd October 1996 and 31st March 1997. The issue - whether ....