TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regard, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner made a finding, which reads as follows:- "I find from the nature of work explained above majority of the work done by the appellants involve major labour work and therefore transfer of material in these works for Rs. 25,63,16,974/- [Rs. 11,83,67,222/- + 11,10,56,875/- + 2,68,92,877/-] cannot be at the rate of 70% as adopted by the Assessing Officer. The inspecting officers though pointed out some defects, these defects do not indicate any purchase suppression. Also at the time of hearing, the Authorised Representative argued that there was no suppression of purchases during inspection or through any other source for initiating revision. Relying on the decision rendered in the case of Lucknow Sk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Officer exercised excess jurisdiction, which is impermissible. 6.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that after the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order, an inspection was conducted and based on the inspection, new materials were found. Based on such inspection, revision orders were passed by the Commercial Tax Officer in proceedings dated 29.01.2016 and therefore, such an order cannot be compared with the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, as new materials were taken out from the premises of the petitioner. In other words, it is contended that the impugned orders have been passed based on certain commissions and omissions and based on the records ....