M.P. Sampathkumar vs State Of Kerala on 20 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ST.Rev..No. 55 of 2007()


1. M.P. SAMPATHKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.S.K.DEVI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :20/03/2009

 O R D E R
     C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              S.T.Rev. NO:55 OF 2007
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 20th March, 2009.

                                        JUDGMENT

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

The question raised in the revision filed by the assessee

pertains to estimation of turnover modified by the first appellate

authority and confirmed by the Tribunal.

2. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the Govt. Pleader for the respondent.

3. It is seen from the Tribunal’s order that on inspection

irregularities in accounts were noticed and petitioner conceded the

same and compounded the offence by remitting compounding fee.

Since accounts are found to be defective turnover was estimated by

the assessing officer by making addition of 2 = times of the

conceded turnover. However, in first appeal the pattern of addition

was changed from conceded turnover to three times the actual

suppression notice. The Tribunal confirmed this order against

which revision is filed. Against the addition of Rs.1 crore to the

turnover the first appellate authority reduced the addition to Rs.35

lakhs. This is confirmed by the Tribunal. After conceding non-

S.T.Rev.No: 55/2007 2

maintenance of accounts and after paying composition fee for

compounding the offence under Section 47, the assessee cannot

canvass for acceptance of books of accounts. The balance is only

estimation of turnover which is seen substantially reduced in first

appeal. Even though Tribunal did not find any justification to

further modify the amount fixed, we do not think revision is

entertainable on this issue because no question of law arises from

determination of turnover modified by the appellate authority.

Consequently revision is dismissed.

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge

jj

K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

—————————————————-

M.F.A.NO:

—————————————————–

JUDGMENT

Dated: