High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Abrar Ali Handloom Merchant, Pratapgarh v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 231 of 2001  RD-AH 3534 (1 March 2007)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.231 of 2001.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.232 of 2001.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.324 of 2001.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.328 of 2001.
M/S Abrar Ali Handloom Merchant, Pratapgarh Applicant
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. Opp.Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present four revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 20th May, 2000 relating to the assessment years, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94.
The applicant claimed to have carried on business of handloom cloths in the aforesaid assessment years and disclosed the turnover at Rs.1,79,024/-, Rs. 2,14,112/-, Rs. 2,09,811 and Rs. 1,81,143.50 respectively. The applicant has not produced any books of account and purchase voucher etc in support of the claim that the business was being carried on for Handloom Clothes. Survey was made at the business premises on 3.5.1994 by the STO (SIB). At the time of survey cash of Rs.3,503/-, stock of Rs.3,11,000/-, one diary Exhibit -2 and some loose parchas were found. In the loose parchas, some entries relating to the purchases and sales were found. Parcha nos. 2, 3 and 4 were dated 22.2.1994 relating to the purchases of Hosiery from Calcutta at Rs. 34,527/- and one builty no.448673 dated 19.4.1994 relating to 270 Qunitals of hosiery valuing Rs. 60,000/- was also found. In the various parchas seized from the premises, Delhi and Calcutta were mentioned. On the basis of the materials found, show cause notice was issued. Applicant claimed that the documents seized at the time of survey did not relate to it and appears to have related to some agent. Reply of the applicant was not accepted and by way of best judgment assessment, the turnover was estimated at Rs.10 lacs, Rs. 12 lacs, Rs.14 lacs and Rs. 16 lacs for the assessment years, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. First appeals filed by the applicant were dismissed. Applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned allowed all the four appeals in part and confirmed the best judgment assessment and estimated the turnover of Hosiery at Rs. 8,50,000/-, Rs. 10,50,000/-, Rs. 12,50,000/- and Rs. 14,00,000/- for the assessment years, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the assessing authority issued one common show cause notice for all the four years without giving details for each individual year. He also submitted that the turnover has also been estimated for the assessment years without giving details of the material for the individual year. Thus, the estimate is arbitrary and without any basis. He further submitted that Tribunal without considering the submissions of the applicant estimated the turnover. He further submitted the estimate of the turnover is without any basis and is in consonance to the material found at the time of survey.
I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.
Admittedly, the applicant had not produced any books of account and purchase voucher relating to the purchases and sales to prove its claim that it had carried on the business of Handloom Clothes. At the time of survey dated 3.5.1994, one diary and loose parchas were found in which the entries relating to the assessment year, 1990-91 and for the subsequent years were found. Details of the entries are mentioned in the appellate order, which shows the suppression for each individual year. At the time of survey, one builty no.448673 dated 19.4.1994 relating to 270 quintals of hosiery for Rs. 60,000/- and Exhibit no.3 consisting of parcha nos. 2,3 and 4 relating to purchases of Rs.34,527/- made from Calcutta on 22.2.1994 were found. These parchas shows the quantum of the suppression for one individual day. Grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal shows that the figures mentioned in the order of the first appellate authority have not been disputed. Before this Court also learned counsel for the applicant is not able to dispute the figures mentioned in the order. Therefore, in view of the fact that the details of the suppressed turnover for each years have been given by the first appellate authority, it cannot be said that without giving the details, turnover have been estimated. First appellate authority has co-extensive power as the assessing authority has to deal with the matter.
Having regard to the suppression found in each assessment year referred in the order of the first appellate authority, estimate of the turnover cannot be said to be arbitrary and without any basis. The estimate is a question of fact and cannot be interfered by this Court.
In the result, all the four revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.