Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1034 of 2009 Revisionist :- M/S Babu Ram Satya Dev Arhti Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- N.R. Kumar,Vishwjeet Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
with Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1033 of 2009 Revisionist :- M/S Babu Ram Satya Dev Arhti Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- N.R. Kumar,Vishwjeet Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. These revisions have been filed by the assessee against the common order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Aligarh dated 11.05.2009 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 379 of 2006 and 378 of 2006, both arising from the penalty proceedings under Section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for A.Y. 2005-06. By that order, the Tribunal has reversed the orders passed by the first appeal authority and confirmed the penalty of Rs.10,111/- and Rs.16,405/- imposed on the assessee.
2. Undisputedly, during the assessment year in question, the assessee was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of food grains. Two transactions of goods were seized at the hands of the assessee on 08.11.2005 and 22.11.2000. They gave rise to penalty orders passed under Section 13-A(4) of the Act which are involved in the present case. Also, for A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee was subjected to assessment. Vide order dated 12.03.2009, final assessment was made. In that assessment order, the books of accounts of the assessee were accepted and no addition was made. Undisputedly, that assessment order has attained finality.
3. It is in this context that the following question has been pressed:
"Whether in face of the books of accounts having been accepted in the final assessment proceedings, any penalty could survive under Section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948?"
4. Heard Sri Vishwjeet, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the imposition of penalty under Section 13-A(4) of the Act is provided in the context of goods that may not be properly accounted for by the assessee. Once the books of accounts of the assessee came to be accepted in the original assessment proceedings and no addition was made to the disclosed turnover, it would be wholly self contradicted to then suggest that there was any undisclosed transaction or any goods had not been accounted for by the assessee, in that year in question.
6. Accordingly, the question of law, as framed above, in answered in negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
7. The present revisions stand allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Abhilash