TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the Proprietrix. However, for verification certain incriminating material like statements and registers were stated to be seized and referred to in the records as Exhibit-I to Exhibit-XIV. It is further submitted that the assessee did not produce the books of accounts subsequently before the Intelligence Authority. 5. On the basis of the material relating to the sales transaction stated to be effected by the assessee M/s. BEJE Agro Industries, Hubli, the Revenue upon verification was of the opinion that the turn over was neither declared properly nor had the assessee discharged the tax liability. 6. While finding that the documents were seized in the business premises, the transaction and turn over arrived at after processing the material that was seized and marked as exhibits, additions were proposed to be made to the turn over declared in the return and filed. 7. While recording a finding that the turnover declared from April 2006 to September 2006, the assessment was re-opened and the assessee was re-assessed on the basis of best judgment under Section 39 (1) of the KVAT Act. 8. On the basis of the discrepancies noticed, notice was issued and reply also came to be made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee never filed a Regular Appeal under Section 62 of the Act against the impugned assessment order but had only filed an application for rectification of the mistake under Section 69 of the Act, after 01.04.2012 ? 15. The learned counsel for respondent Sri. H. R. Kambiyavar has contended that the matter is to be decided taking note of the scope of Section 65 i.e., on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either failed to decide or decided erroneously any question of law and the proceedings cannot be enlarged by considering fresh questions of law. 16. It is submitted that findings of fact cannot be interfered with and it is only questions of law that could be looked into. 17. It is submitted that the contention of the learned Government Advocate - Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath that the Second Appellate Authority could not have ordered for remand which is the question of law that is framed, is a point that is raised in the present proceedings for the first time, which is impermissible. 18. It is submitted that the order that is called in question passed by the Second Appellate Authority is only an order of remand and accordingly no grounds are made out for interference in the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of seized registers and statements which are numbered as Exhibits-I to XIV and noticing the difference in the turn over with reference to declared turn over and turn over on the basis of seized material the Assessing Officer proposed to add additional turn over. Notice was issued on 03.10.2011 and reply to the same was also made and after rejection of the explanation, re-assessment order was passed. Notice of demand came to be issued on 03.10.2011 and it is only thereafter that rectification of the assessment order was sought for on 04.08.2012. The time for filing an appeal against the re-assessment order had already expired as the time available for filing an appeal was 30 days from when notice of assessment was served and a further period of 180 days thereafter which period had already concluded. Infact, the rectification application has been filed after lapse of 302 days as observed by the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the re-assessment order has attained finality. 26. The First Appellate Authority has already recorded a detailed finding that there is no mistake apparent on record and that the endorsement dated 09.08.2012 was sustainable. 27. In the secon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar appeal proceedings. Apparent error will not refer to an error that is a product of deep consideration after evaluating evidence. 33. As regards point (ii), the question whether the material in the Exhibit-I and Exhibit-III contain only information and details of quotations and not concluded sales transactions is also an aspect touching the appreciation of evidence. 34. As pointed out by learned Government Advocate, a bare perusal of Exhibit-I would indicate that Chassis number and Permit date are mentioned which are assigned only in case of completed sales and accordingly, contention deserves to be rejected. Even without entering into such finding, contention relates to appreciation of evidence as regards to entries and documents in Exhibit-I and cannot be asserted as being an apparent error. Similarly as regards the third contention that the transactions in Exhibit-V has already been taken note of in the returns, there is no material to substantiate the same. 35. As regards to the rectification application for the Financial Year 2006-07, identical contentions have been raised as has been addressed above. 36. The Second Appellate Authority could not have gone beyond the sco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contentions have been advanced that material belonging to another assessee seized at the spot i.e., M/s. Sony Agro Industries has been wrongly included, it is the contention of learned Government Advocate that there is a presumption regarding documents seized in the premises of the business entity as belonging to the said business entity in terms of Section 52 (5) unless the contrary is proved. It is further submitted that M/s. Sony Agro Industries was also not registered separately. The said aspect as raised by the assessee is also one that is to be raised in appeal and could not have been considered in rectification proceedings. 40. Accordingly, taking note that appeal period had already lapsed when rectification was filed, that the Second Appellate Authority had travelled beyond the grounds taken in the rectification application, question of law on point no. 2(ii) deserves to be answered in the affirmative. By answering so, the Court is still within the scope of power conferred under Section 65 by holding that the authority acting under Section 63 has wrongly answered question of law framed by it. It is clarified that the scope of revision under Section 65 is only to examine wh....