Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Madan Mohan And Co. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1094 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1225 (27 October 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no. 1094 of 1996.

Madan Mohan and Company, Pratapgarh. ...Revisionist.


Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

             The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 19.7.1996 relating to assessment year 1991-92.

              Applicant was engaged in the business of Food grains and Oil Seeds.   Books of account had been rejected and the turnover had been enhanced mainly on the basis of two Purchas found at the time of survey dated 14.11.1991.  In Purcha no. 1, there was an entry of Rs.275/- and Rs.8/- and in Purcha no. 2, there was an entry relating to sale of 3 bags of rice   for Rs.1373/-.  Entries of the aforesaid of two Purchas, were not found entered into the books of account.  Explanation offered by the dealer had not been accepted with regard to the said Purchas.  Assessing Authority treated the Purcha no. 1 relating to the freight and estimated the suppressed purchases of Food grains at Rs.27,000/- and corresponding purchases of rice against Purcha no. 2 at Rs.1000/-.  In all Assessing Authority had treated the suppressed purchases against Purcha nos. 1 and 2 at Rs.28,000/-.  Taking into account, season of rice and Food grains and market days, suppressed purchases have been multiplied by 68 days and accordingly estimated the suppressed purchases at Rs.19,00,000/-.  First Appellate Authority reduced the suppressed purchases to Rs.11,00,000/-.  In the Second Appeal, Tribunal reduced the suppressed purchases to Rs.2,50,000/-.

             Heard Counsel for the parties.

             Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has accepted that in Purcha no. 1 entry was not relating to the freight and therefore, if the entry of Purcha no. 1 at Rs.275/- and Rs.8/- are taken into account and the corresponding purchases of Purcha no. 2 at Rs.1,000/- which have been estimated by the Assessing Authority are considered the total amount comes to Rs.1273/-.  If this suppressed turnover of purchases is multiplied by 68 days, the suppressed purchases comes to Rs.87,244/-, therefore, estimate of turnover at Rs.2,50,000/- is arbitrary and excessive.  I find force in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  In the circumstances, matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-determine the turnover afresh in the light of observations made above.

             In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to re-determine the turnover.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.