M/S GOVERDHAN DAS GHANSHYAM DAS LKO.THROUGH ITS PARTNER V. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES U.P.LUCKNOW

STRE/1/2009

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Goverdhan Das Ghanshyam Das Lko., a business engaged in the sale and purchase of precious and semi-precious stones, challenging the assessment orders for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The Income Tax Department had seized the revisionist's books during the relevant period, and incomplete records were presented to the Trade Tax Authorities. Consequently, the Assessing Authority issued a Best Judgment Assessment based on the disclosed income, which was contested but upheld by the lower appellate authorities and the Tribunal. The revisionist's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, affirming the assessment and the rejection of the books of accounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725804 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C S C
• Assessee Lawyers: P AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Assessment; Best Judgment Assessment; Commercial Tax Tribunal; Precious Stones; Semi-precious stones; Trade Tax

Judgement Text

"Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57067 Court No. - 17 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1 of 2009 Revisionist :- M/S Goverdhan Das Ghanshyam Das Lko.Through Its Partner Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- P.Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party, and perused the records. 2. By means of the present revision, order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 01.10.2008 has been assailed, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, in the present case are that the revisionist is carrying on the business of sale and purchase of precious stones and semi-precious stones and the present case relates to the Assessment for the period 1997-98 and 1998-99. It is stated that during the said proceeding the Books-of-Accounts were seized by the Income Tax Department, while during the assessment-proceedings before the Trade Tax Authorities copies of the Books-of-Accounts were presented. The Assessing Authority had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner asking him to submit the details of the sales and purchase of the precious stones made by him during the period of Assessment. The revisionist could not submit the details of the sale and purchase made by him and consequently his Books-of- Accounts were rejected and the Best-Judgment-Assessment was made on the basis of income of the said year, that was 7.50 lac rupees. This is in the light of the fact that the revisionist himself has disclosed his sales to be Rs. 698842.80 for the whole year. 4. The revisionist, being aggrieved by the order of the Assessment dated 28.07.2001, preferred an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected, confirming the order passed by the Assessing Authority on 25.02.2002. The First Appellate Authority also considered the grounds raised by the revisionist and he was of the view that the entire details of the transactions were not submitted by the revisionist in as much as all the precious stones, which are highly valued, carried different value according to their category and no such details were given by the revisionist and there was no other option, except to reject the Books-of-Accounts and pass the Best Judgment Assessment. 5. In Second Appeal before the Tribunal, orders of both the authorities below were considered and upheld and the reasoning given was also found to be good and the contention of the revisionist was rejected there also. 6. Before this Court, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that photocopies of all the Book-of-Accounts were presented before the Assessing Authority and there was no adequate reason for rejection of the Books-of-Accounts. He has further submitted that the precious stones were taxed only from 01.10.1997, while the Assessing Authority has done the assessment for the entire year and consequently the matter requires interference. 7. From the perusal of the revision, it is noticed that the revisionist had not submitted the entire details of the transactions with regard to the sale and purchase of precious stones despite a show-cause notice being given to him. In as much as the details of transactions, as sought by the Authorities, was not presented, there was no other method of assessing the revisionist and consequently the Books-of-Accounts were rejected and Best Judgment Assessment was passed. 8. Considering the fact that the revisionist had disclosed his income to be Rs. 6,98,842.80, while only a small addition to the same has been imposed, holding his income to be Rs. 7.50 lacs. With regard to the dates, on which the precious stones have become taxable, the said issue has neither been dealt with by the First Appellate Authority nor by the Second Appellate Authority and it seems that the said ground, though taken in the memo of the appeal, was never pressed before both the said Authorities and, consequently, can be deemed to be given up by the revisionist before the said Authorities and consequently it does not require any interference in the present revision. Even otherwise, there is no material to indicate that the transactions, which have been considered by the Authorities below, pertain to the period for the entire year or from 01.10.1997 onwards. There is no consideration on this issue and consequently no interference can be made, as finding can be returned by this Court in the present revision. 9. In the light of the above, no interference is required in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 25.8.2023 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "