C HAMSA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assessee is the revision petitioner. Assessment year is 19992000. The petitioner is a dealer in marble at Kottancherry, Kanhangad, Kasaragod District. He filed returns conceding a total turnover of Rs.18,79,357.99 and claimed exemption for Rs. 10,18,943.75 being second sales for the years 19992000. The petitioner's assessment for the year 19992000 was completed to the best of judgment fixing a taxable turnover of Rs. 24,09,680. The petitioner's claim for exemption being second sales was also rejected. It was submitted that there was no sufficient materials before the Assessing Authority warranting rejection of books of accounts and resorting to best judgment assessment.

(2.) The petitioner mainly contended before the Assessing Officer that the return was not correct. The Assessing Authority has relied on the report of the I.O.B. and further it also referred to the files of Mahamaya Traders from whom the tiles were purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the sales with the Mahamaya Traders was secondary sales. But the Assessing Officer took the view that the evidence of Mahamaya Traders does not find any entry in the accounts of Mahamaya Traders. Hence, those transactions were avoided and the assessment was completed.

(3.) The petitioner made a request for examination of Mahamaya Traders. But the Assessing Officer did not allow it and completed the assessment. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Appellate Authority after stating that since there was no opportunity given to the assessee to cross examine the witnesses, whose evidence was relied on by the Assessing Officer, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and passed an order accepting the exemptions. Against that, the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has now held that there was no necessity to give an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.