MODI TRADERS, R C GARG Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for taxes, appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned assessment order of the Respondent, dated 28.09.2010, does not state the reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner is liable to pay the balance tax amount of Rs. 4,91,469/-and a penalty of Rs. 6,14,336/-. Even though, the impugned order of assessment had been passed by the Respondent, based on the inspection report filed by the Enforcement wing officers of the Department, in respect of the alleged stock variation, no reasons are found in the impugned order. He had also submitted that, in the report of the Enforcement wing officers concerned, dated 02.06.2003, the difference between the 'Stocks to be' and the 'Actual stock held' is only Rs. 1,47,586/-. In the impugned assessment order passed by the Respondent, it had been stated that Suppression due to stock variation is Rs. 18,43,971/-. Hence, the impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside and the Respondent has to be directed to pass the assessment, order for the year 2003-2004, afresh, after furnishing the necessary details to the Petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent had no objection for this Court passing such an order, as there is no explanation in the impugned assessment order, dated 28.09.2010, with regard to the difference in the amount mentioned in the report of the Enforcement wing officers, dated 02.06.2003, and the impugned assessment order of the Respondent, dated 28.09.2010.