C MANICKAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is the petitioner in all the above three revisions. THEy relate to the assessment years 1981-1982, 1982-83 and 1983-84. THE assessee is a dealer in stainless steel articles and was originally granted exemption by granting nil assessment order under section 12 of the Act for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. Subsequently relying upon inspection conducted by the Intelligence Wing the assessments were revised estimating the first sales of stainless steel articles to the tune of Rs. 4,752 for the assessment year 1982-83, Rs. 77,094 for the assessment year 1981-82 and a sum of Rs. 47,523 and Rs. 7,710 were levied as penalties.

(2.) FOR the assessment year 1983-84 in the course of original assessment proceedings a sum of Rs. 9,22,847 was estimated as first sales of stainless steel articles and a sum of Rs. 90,279 was levied as penalty under section 12 (3) of the Act on the basis of the inspection conducted by the enforcement wing. The main objections to the above proceedings for the three years by the assessee were that there was no basis known to law to revise the assessments for the first two years, that the burden of proof of escapement of turnover for the first two years was not discharged by the Revenue that the accounts recovered did not contain any sales or purchases, that they were cash transactions or jottings, that the names mentioned therein did not contain the description of any stainless steel articles dealt with by the assessee, that no cross-examination of the persons whose names were found in the entries was granted for proving that there was no sale or purchase involved in the transactions and that there was no justification to levy penalty and that the assessment proposals for the last year 1983-84 and penalty proposals were wholly unsustainable. These objections were rejected by the assessing officer. On appeals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the first two years reduced the estimate by 50 per cent and reduced the penalty as under : Year Estimated first sales Penalty 1981-82 Rs. 25,698 Rs. 1,285 1982-83 Rs. 1,59,408 Rs. 7,921 1983-84 Rs. 2,63,687 Rs. 11,838 The consequential surcharge levies were also confirmed proportionately. Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The State filed enhancement petition for the year 1983-84. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the enhancement petition filed by the department. Accordingly the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for all the three years were confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in revision before this Court in all the assessment years under consideration.

(3.) A perusal of the entries in the records secured reveals that the assessee received the goods from unknown source and disposed of them also outside the books of account. The computation of the actual suppression was made at Rs. 51,396 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also granted relief towards estimated second sales applying the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Gomathiammal reported in [1984] 55 STC 210. Therefore, there is an addition of Rs. 25,698 taxable at 10 per cent. Since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner estimated the first sale and granted relief it may not be said that the turnover assessed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal is without any basis.