Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2071 of 2006 Revisionist :- S/S Jai Bharat Industries Kachaura Bazar Agra Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. And Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2074 of 2006 Revisionist :- S/S Jai Bharat Industries Kachaura Bazar Agra Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.2071 of 2006 has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra dated 12.07.2006 passed in Second Appeal No.110 of 2004 for A.Y. 2001-02 (Central).
3. Similarly, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.2074 of 2006 has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra dated 12.07.2006 passed in Second Appeal No.32 of 2005 for A.Y. 2000-01 (Central).
4. In both revisions, the following question of law has been pressed:
"Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in estimate of turnover merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures in a speculative manner by ignoring its own finding on the issue of Central Sale?"
5. While it is not in dispute that the assessee had been subjected to best judgement assessment upon rejection of books and upon consideration of the material seized during the survey dated 14.05.2003, learned counsel for the assessee would submit, insofar as the aforesaid two A.Ys. being 2001-02 (Central) and 2000-01 (Central) are concerned, the Tribunal recorded a specific finding in favour of the assessee that the materials seized during the aforesaid survey did not pertain to those assessment years. It further recorded a finding that the estimation of turnover made by the assessing authority was excessive. Thereafter, the Tribunal has not recorded any reason to sustain the addition of undisclosed central sale of Rs.30,00,000/- for A.Y. 2001-02 and Rs.22,50,000/- for A.Y. 2000-01 (Central).
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the assessee that for the purposes of making best judgement assessment under the Central Act, some information or material ought to have existed to establish that the assessee had performed inter-state sale outside its books of account. In absence of any material or in absence of reasoning being offered by the Tribunal, the addition that has been sustained is wholly unfounded.
7. In response, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the assessee had maintained single set of books of account. Once those books had been rejected, consequentially, enhancement had to be made on estimated basis under the central assessment as well.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is true that in case of single set of books of account, once the book version is rejected, adverse impact may be witnessed both in the State assessment or Central assessment. However, in the facts of the present case the Tribunal had recorded a specific finding that the seized material did not evidence undisclosed central sales and the Tribunal further found the estimation to be excessive. In absence of any reasoning being given by the Tribunal thereafter to make any estimation under the Central Act, it is difficult to sustain the addition purely on ad hoc basis as that would amount estimation on surmises and conjectures.
9. Once the Tribunal had recorded a finding that no material had been discovered during the survey, relevant to the A.Ys. 2000-01 (Central) and 2001-02 (Central), it was for the Tribunal to have thereafter offered its own reasoning to sustain the addition to any extent. No reasoning has been recorded in the order. The estimation has been sustained purely on conjectures. It is based on no material or evidence.
10. Accordingly, the present two revisions are allowed. The question of law, as framed above, is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The enhancement made on estimate basis is deleted.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Abhilash