Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 41 of 2015 Revisionist :- M/S Bharat Cement And Paint Store Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Lko Counsel for Revisionist :- Suhel Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Singh and Sri Suhel Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad dated 23.04.2010 in Second Appeal No.199 of 2009 for the A.Y. 2006-07 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as also the cross appeal filed by the revenue. The revision has been filed with a extra-ordinary delay of 4 years and 343 days.
3. On delay, it has been stated that the assessee had earlier engaged a counsel for filing this revision, but he died before filing that revision and the fact of his death was not known to the assessee for very long. Therefore the delay.
4. On merits, it is seen, arising from a survey wherein certain documents etc. had been seized, the books of accounts of the assessee had been rejected and the best judgment assessment made. Against disclosed purchase turnover Rs.84,76,592.78/-, the assessee had disclosed the sale turnover of Rs.92,44,930/- and closing stock Rs.5,97,468/-. Upon rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee, the Assessing Officer estimated the undisclosed sales at Rs.10,00,000/-, and accordingly imposed tax Rs.1,18,000/- thereon. Upon appeal, the first appellate authority granted partial relief and reduced the disputed tax by Rs.70,000/- giving rise to the disputed tax liability of Rs.48,000/- only. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, there is no ground for condoning such an extra- ordinary delay on plea of death of the earlier counsel. There is no evidence of the applicant having engaged the said counsel. Even on merits, the rejection of books of accounts is well founded and the estimation of turnover being a matter of guess work, the estimation made by the fact finding authorities is found to be based on the material existing on record. There is neither any perversity shown nor any illegality established to question the estimation made by the first appellate authority as has been sustained by the Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is dismissed on delay as also on merits.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019/S.Chaurasia