TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue Authorities, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, and restored the order of the Assessing Officer, whereby the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 42,24,413/- to the turnover of the Assessee on account of probable suppression of sale. 2. The brief facts of this case are as follows:- The Appellant Assessee is a dealer in gold and silver jewellery. For the year, 2004-05 the Assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,31,68,855/-. Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') the Assessing Officer however assessed that the total and taxable turnover of the Assessee, to be Rs. 6,90,96,140/- and Rs. 4,50,73,845/- respectively, by his assessment order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntained correct and complete accounts of the transactions, and therefore addition of an equal amount to the proved purchase suppression was justified under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. He therefore issued a demand notice for a total of Rs. 1,68,977/- (2% of the additional taxable amount plus 5% surcharge). 4. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appellate) confirmed the amount imputed by the Assessing Officer because of suppression, on account of the fact that the Assessee had failed to account for invoice No.48. The Deputy Commissioner however noted that the Assessing Officer had added an equal amount as probable omission, merely because the dealer had not kept proper and complete accounts. He noted, that there was no other incriminating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the addition of Rs. 42,24,413/- on the ground of probable sale suppression. It was contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) did not require any interference and that the Tribunal ought not to have restored the order of the Assessing Officer. It was further contended that had the Assessee wanted to suppress the sale he would not have shown if for the next assessment year, i.e. 2005-06. The Assessee did not show the transaction in the Assessment year 2004-05 was because of the dispute between the Tvl. Lakshmi Stores and the Assessee. It was therefore submitted that in the facts of the case, since the Assessee had disclosed the transaction for the next Assessment year, there could not be any deliberate suppression. 9. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 42,24,413/- was justified on account of probable submission. The Deputy Commissioner took the view that in the absence of any material to show that there was additional suppression it was not proper to add Rs. 42,24,413/-. 13. A reading of Section 16 of the Act, makes it amply clear that the Assessing Officer had the power to add the amount in dispute, on account of probable omission. The use of the words, to the best of it's judgment creates a wide discretionary power upon the Assessing Officer, who in the instant case has taken the view that in light of the suppression that was uncovered, it was plausible to assume that the Assessee must have suppressed sales at least worth Rs. 42,24,413/-. This view ultimately found favour with....