High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A. THANIKKACHALAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. JAYARAMA CHOUTA
Hindustan Steel Distributors - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondents
Tax Case No. 1625 of 1984 (Revision No. 415 of 1984)
Decided On : 14 September 1995
SALES TAX - Suppressed sales turnover - Estimation - Assessee failed to furnish explanation for 160 tonnes - Tribunal reduced the suppressed sales turnover and the penalty without assigning any proper reason - Held, the Tribunal was very much lenient in reducing the suppressed sales turnover to rupees two lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1, 500 - No ground to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in respect of both quantum and penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, Hindustan Steel Distributors, filed a return showing a turnover of Rs. 37, 44, 925.56 and claimed second sale exemption for the assessment year 1979-80. During a raid conducted by the Income-tax Department, excess stock and undisclosed stock were found. The assessing officer estimated the suppressed sales turnover at Rs. 7, 60, 038 and levied a penalty of Rs. 7, 548. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner estimated the suppressed quantity as 160 tonnes and arrived at the suppressed turnover at Rs. 4, 80, 000 and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5, 000. The Appellate Tribunal further reduced the suppressed turnover to Rs. 2 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1, 500.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal reduced the suppressed sales turnover and the penalty without assigning any proper reason. However, the Tribunal was very much lenient in reducing the suppressed sales turnover to rupees two lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 1, 500. The assessee failed to furnish an explanation for the suppressed sales turnover of 160 tonnes.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the suppressed sales turnover and the penalty without assigning any proper reason.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal has not given any acceptable explanation for reducing the suppressed sales turnover as determined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. So also the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 5, 000 levied by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 1, 500. For reduction of penalties also no plausible explanation was found in the order passed by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The tax case (revision) is dismissed. No costs.
THANIKKACHALAM, J.
The assessee is the petitioner. The assessee is Hindustan Steel Distributors, No. 11, Sembudoss Street, Madras-1, dealing in iron and steel. The assessee filed a return, showings turnover of Rs. 37, 44, 925.56 and claimed second sale exemption for the assessment year 1979-80. There was a raid conducted by the Income-tax Department. The assessing officer on check of accounts found that the place of business of the assessee was inspected by the Income-tax Department officers, who recovered certain records and also verified the stocks and noticed excess stock of 5.229 tonnes of iron and steel and also found undisclosed stock of 36.707 tonnes in the unregistered open-yard. The further investigation of the record recovered by the Income-tax Officer revealed that the assessee have sold 22 items of iron and steel goods, totally weighing 218.243 tonnes for which relevant purchase bills were not available. On the basis of this verification, the assessing officer arrived at the suppressed quantity as 253.346 tonnes and estimated the suppressed sales turnover at Rs. 7, 60, 038, taxable at 4 per cent and also levied a penalty of Rs. 7, 548. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner estimated the suppressed quantity as 160 tonnes and arrived at the suppressed turnover at Rs. 4, 80, 000 and also reduced the penalty to Rs. 5, 000. Thus the order passed by the assessing officer was modified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the overall facts, thought fit to fix the suppressed turnover roughly at Rs. 2 lakhs, taxable at 4 per cent and the Tribunal also held that the levy of penalty of Rs. 1, 500 would be reasonable. Accordingly, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 5, 000 to Rs. 1, 500. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal modified the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is against this order, the assessee is now in revision before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted as under :
The assessing officer based his order on the preliminary report prepared by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Department after finalisation of account, fixed the suppressed sales at Rs. 11, 740 on 2.717 M.T. Therefore, according to the counsel, if at all any addition is warranted on suppressed sales turnover, it would be only Rs. 11, 740 and nothing more. The learned counsel further submitted that before the authorities below, detailed explanations were filed showing the quantity of iron and steel sold, relating to 531 tonnes would cover the sales turnover of 22 items said to have been suppressed by the asssessee. According to the learned counsel, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the department. It was further pointed out that when the department accepted the explanation of the assessee for 93 tonnes, it ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the assessee for the remaining 160 tonnes also. Therefore, it was submitted that when the sales turnover of 160 tonnes is included in the sales turnover of 531 tonnes, the contention of the department that sales turnover of 160 tonnes was not disclosed, is unacceptable. The learned counsel again pointed out that in the open-yard the goods belonging to other concerns were also deposited and the goods belonging to the assessee were separately accounted for and furnished to the department, which was not accepted. It was, therefore, submitted that inasmuch as the assessee explained the sale of iron and steel to the extent of 531 tonnes, which was accepted by the Income-tax Department, except 2.717 metric tonnes, there is no reasonableness on the part of the Sales Tax Department to refuse to accept the explanation offered by the assessee in the matter of sales turnover of 160 tonnes.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), while supporting the order passed by the Tribuna
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.