PARRYS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisions, being connected, we are disposing of the same by a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner, according to him, commenced his business in Textiles in the year 1999-2000. He was not registered with the Tax Department. There was a raid conducted on his premises on 29th May, 2003; documents were seized; on the strength of the same, after issuing notices to the petitioner and finding no cooperation from him as the petitioner did not care to respond to the notices, best of judgment assessments were completed from the year 1999- 2000 onwards. What is in controversy before us is the assessments relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2001-02 in these two revisions. Petitioner, not having succeeded before the First Appellate Authority as also the Tribunal, is before us. The Tribunal, it must be noticed, took note of the lack of response from the petitioner to the notices and blames the petitioner for not availing the opportunities provided and finding no ground to interfere with the assessments, confirmed the assessments.

(3.) Sri Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the cases, would submit that in the assessment year 1999-2000, which was the first year of the business of the petitioner, on the basis of the seized material, which is in the region of Rs. 46,000/- in relation to readymade garments, under the guise of best of judgment assessments, the Assessing Officer has arrived at a fantastic sum of near Rs. 20,00,000/-. He reminds us that it was his first year in business and the business will slowly grow-up. He would point out that for certain years, where also the assessment was completed based on best of judgment of the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the incriminating material seized in raid, petitioner has accepted those assessments, which were done reasonably. But, as far as assessing turnover of readymade garments in a sum of Rs. 20,07,000/- in the first year is concerned, the same would amount to a perverse finding, which would entitle the revisional court to interfere as a perverse finding would give rise to a substantial question of law. He would also submit that likewise in 2001-02, his principal complaint projected before us is that the seized material is evidencing the turnover of Rs. 11,135/-, the assessment is put at Rs. 12 lacs in relation to the readymade garments. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the matter may be remanded back.