2020 (6) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the inspection of the business premises on 09.06.2010. The Shop Inspection Report (SIR) disclosed a stock variation to the tune of Rs. 4,08,81,975/-. The assessee compounded the offence. The Assessing Officer took note of the suppression as detected in the inspection file as also made an addition with respect to the value of the stock allegedly transferred to various hospitals as per the delivery note issued by the assessee. This addition came to Rs. 69,03,320/-. The total addition thus came to Rs. 4,77,85,295/-, to which a further addition of two times the estimated suppressed turnover was added. There was yet another addition of purchase return, amounting to Rs. 65,10,575/-. 2. In first appeal, the further addition made at two times t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tals in which the cardiac stents were said to be stocked. The stock variation as found on inspection, cannot be interfered with on such assertions without any substantiating material produced. In the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to entertain the revision filed by the assessee. We reject O.T.Rev.88 of 2018, finding no question of law arising in the revision. 6. The revision filed by the State raises one question of law, as to whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the turnover addition with respect to under-valuation as disclosed from the accounts of the assessee. 7. To better understand the addition made, we looked at the assessment order. The assessee admittedly had been stocking cardiac stents in various hos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fically named. We think that the Tribunal erroneously deleted such additions made on the ground that addition would be taken care of in that made with respect to suppression. The addition made on the basis of the stock variation, to cover probable omissions and suppression is only that up to September of the assessment year; till which date the assessee had not been using departmental delivery notes. The under-valuation is insofar as the months from October to March of the assessment year. 9. While affirming such addition made, we have serious doubt about the quantum noticed by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs. 69,03,320/-. We do not see such a figure arising between October to March. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued t....