At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR
For the Applicant: Piyush Agrawal, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: A.C. Tripathi, S.C.
Ashok Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent Commissioner.
2. The present revision relates for the Assessment Year 1998-99 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
3. The facts in brief are that the revisionist carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of Atta, Maida, Suji and the factory of the revisionist is situated at Parasakhera, Bareilly. A survey has been conducted on 19.11.1998 and during the course of survey the survey team has noticed certain discrepancies in the books of accounts. Based on the said discrepancies, a notice has been issued. The applicant has submitted a reply thereto. During the course of the assessment proceedings the assessing authority has proceeded on the basis of survey report and has passed a detailed assessment order.
4. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee has preferred an appeal under Section 9 of U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the submissions of the assessee while allowing the appeal in part vide order dated 17.7.2001. The certain reliefs are granted to the revisionist by the first appellate authority after due consideration of the facts and material, which has been placed before it.
5. Still aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority the second appeal has been preferred by the assessee/revisionist before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Trade Tax Tribunal vide impugned order dated 31.3.2004 has dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist and has confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal).
6. It is pertinent to mention here that against the order of first appellate authority, partly allowing the appeal filed by the applicant, an appeal has been filed by the department. The Tribunal vide its impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2004 has dismissed both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the department.
7. Against the said order dated 31.3.2004 the instant revision has been filed before this Court.
8. Following questions of law are raised by means of the present revision :
"(1) Whether in view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s Hamara Chappal House (2004 STI 127), the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified that the goods in the books of accounts were found more than on physical verification?
(2) Whether at the time of survey all books of accounts were found up-to-date and no discrepancy whatsoever was found still adverse view should have been legally drawn against the applicant?
(3) Whether even though the lower authorities has accepted the fact that in the Bins stock of wheat are being kept, still adverse view should have been legally drawn against the applicant?
(4) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, rejecting the appeal of the applicant is justified ?
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee has considered all the materials as well as survey report dated 19.11.1998, which has been prepared by the survey team and the survey team has noticed certain irregularity as well as discrepancies in the books of accounts of the assessee including the manufacturing process.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and after perusal of the record and the judgmen
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t of all the authorities including the Tribunal, I find no error in the impugned order of the Tribunal, therefore there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The Tribunal has recorded finding after due consideration of the facts, hence no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. 11. The revision is accordingly, dismissed.