Court No. - 7
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2325 of 2007 Applicant :- M/S Sanjay And Company Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present revision has been filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 1995-96 (U.P.) arising from the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 30.04.2007 in Second Appeal No. 379 of 1999.
2. The assessee is the brick kiln operator who, for the A.Y. 1995-96, disclosed to have run the brick kiln during the second half of the season being after the monsoon. Based on a survey conducted, the assessing authority on 16.05.1995 rejected the aforesaid claim made by the assessee and estimated the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 9,78,300/- and the tax liability at Rs. 97,930/-. Adverse inference had been drawn against the assessee on the basis of statement of chowkidar of the assessee who, according to the revenue authority, had stated that the brick kiln had been run even in the first half of the season. Also, the adverse inference was drawn against the assessee because 20,000 bricks had been found on the brick kiln.
3. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed and the assessment order was confirmed. Upon second appeal, the Tribunal had reduced the turnover to Rs. 5,74,000/- and fixed the tax liability at Rs. 57,400/-. That order was not approved by this Court in Trade Tax Revision No. 672 of 2000. The said revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal vide order dated 10.10.2006.
4. Presently, the Tribunal has, upon consideration of the material existing on record, granted further reduction to the assessee and, at present, the disputed tax liability had been determined at Rs. 22,890/-.
5. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that there is no basis as to the estimation made by the Tribunal and that the First Appellate Authority had rightly allowed the appeal in part.
6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand submits, that the Tribunal has rightly granted relief and made reduction to the turnover and disputed tax.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and First Appellate Authority, it appears that rejection of the books of account was in view of the material and evidence that was found during the survey conducted wherein it was noted that substantial stock of the manufactured bricks was found inside the brick kiln for which no credible explanation could be offered by the assessee. If the assessee had run the brick kiln that too in the second half of the season after the monsoon, there could never arise a situation where such a large stock of bricks would have been found inside the brick kiln at the time of survey, which was conducted almost in the first half of the season. Therefore, the rejection of books of account was wholly valid and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
8. Insofar as the estimation of the turnover is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has considered the entire material and thereafter made an informed decision granting substantial relief to the assessee and that being the findings of fact based on evidence, no interference is required in that regard.
9. The present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Abhilash