TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the petitioner and Mrs.J.Padmavathy Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. 3.The petitioner is a dealer in sanitary ware. The place of business of the dealer was inspected on 25.07.2013 by the Enforcement Wing and the Inspecting Officers noticed certain alleged defects. These defects, relating to purchase of solution, arose on a verification of the profit and loss account and the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. Thus, the authorities proposed to treat the same as purchase suppression to be brought to Tax for all three periods as sales suppression. 4.Based on the report of the Inspecting Authorities, notices dated 15.05.2014 issued by the Assessing Authority proposing additions as sales suppression based on the alleged purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the reply of the petitioner, dated 25.07.2014, was not accepted. 7.In the meanwhile, it appears that the erstwhile proprietor had passed away on 29.04.2015. Fresh notice was thus issued pursuant to the demise of the proprietor, by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on 03.10.2016. The widow of the erstwhile proprietor respond to the same seeking several documents. After exchange of communication between the petitioner and the respondent, all documents sought for were furnished. 8.It appears, in the meanwhile, that the Assessing Authority, who appears to be thoroughly convinced by the explanation and the material filed by the petitioner before him corresponded yet again with the Joint Commissioner, his superior, pointing out his i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per monthly return 32996868 429 Even though the records are readily available with you to ascertain the above fact, any we may given a personal and we undertake to appear in person along with the records to prove our stand effectively. 2.Equal Addition Besides making estimation towards actual suppression you have proposed to levy an equal addition towards probable omission. We submit that in the absence of proof of continuity of suppression, no addition could be made and the same is not sustainable. We rely on Madras High Court decision reported in 57 STC 212, 103 STC 543, Sankar Oil Mills (TC (R) No.2377/08, dated 08.07.10), 28 VST 199 (Commercial Cloth Manufacturing) and 42 VST 166 (SRS Industries), which is binding on ....