2018 (4) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Officer. 3. Aggrieved against the revision made, the dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, who allowed the same vide order in A.P.No.42/04 dated 25.06.2004. Against the orders of the Appellate Commissioner (CT)-II, Chennai, the State filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai in STA No.284 of 2005. 4. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, vide order dated 29.10.2011, dismissed the State appeal. 5. Tax case revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in accepting the books of accounts of the dealer/assessee at the time of hearing of appeal when the same was not produced before the Assessing Authority for passing order of assessment ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in accepting the books of accounts of the dealer/assessee without remanding the same to the Assessing Authority for verifying the same with other connected records ?" 6. Substantiating ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... found that the appellants have found entered the purchases made from Hong Kong dealers. The Inspecting Officer have verified the records relates to 2001-02, whereas, these purchase were relates to the year 2000-01 which have been found duly accounted for. Hence the Inspecting Officer ascertain that the appellants have failed to account for these purchases made from Hong Kong was not correct since the appellants have accounted for these purchases for the year 2000-01 instead of the year 2001-02 since the purchases have been accounted for by the appellants the addition made by the Assessing Authority for Rs. 8,62,726.00 by adding G.P of 5% on the import value of Rs. 8,21,645.00 was set aside and relief claimed by the appellants were allowed. 7. The equal time addition for estimated suppression arrived by the Assessing Authority for Rs. 8,62,726.00 was also set aside since the relief claimed by the appellants on actual suppression is set aside and deleted. 8. In respect of levy of penalty, since the relief claimed on actual suppression is set aside the consequent levy of penalty of Rs. 51,764.00 under Section 16(2)(d) of TNGST Act is also deleted. In fine, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d under self assessment at Rs. 64,85,549/- (P.61, 73 and 74). The year in dispute is 2000-01. Self assessment was made on 27.11.2001. (ii) After rendering of return and account under self assessment the unit was inspected on 5.9.01 and the inspection resulted unearthing of purchase suppression and its consequence sales omission at Rs. 8,62,726/- at 4% and hence equal time addition of sales omission was also made by the revenue. (iii) The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) in his order at page 4 para 6 had deleted entire addition under the pretext that the suppression noticed at the time of inspection was subsequently accounted for. This is the main contention by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). (iv) The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT)'s contention is not acceptable, because the dealer had admitted the purchase omission and consequential sales suppression at Rs. 8,62,726/- before the inspecting official and also handed over cheque for Rs. 8,58,370/- in cheque No.606750 dated 6.9.2001 drawn on IOB, Sowcarpet (Page 99 of assessment record). Therefore facts once admitted before the inspecting official cannot be rebutted subsequently be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad verified the books of accounts relating to the assessment year 2001-2002 alone and it is evident from the inspection report, wherein the details of books signed and initiated by them is being mentioned. It is obvious that the import effected in the year 2000-2001 would not be accounted for in the year 2001-2002, but only in the year 2000-2001. The alleged imported turnover was duly accounted for in the books of accounts much earlier to the date of inspection. Even in the reconciliation statement prepared by the officials at the time of inspection, reflects sales from 1.4.2000 to 5.9.2001 as Rs. 4,90,374/- and the closing stock of Rs. 13,04,809/-. It is to be noted that in the absence of purchase, there is no possibility of showing closing stock of Rs. 13,04,809/-. The respondent submitted that the alleged suppressed turnover of Rs. 4,28,900/- is duly accounted for in the books of accounts and tax was paid by effecting sales of the same, in the previous assessment year itself. It is also not out of place to mention that the entire payment such as customs duty, clearing and forwarding charges, clearing agent charges etc., are made through bank and the same has been relied....