Full Judgment
S. Sankarasubban, J.
1. Assessee is the revision petitioner. The assessment year is 1991-92. The assessee is a dealer in rubber and an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessment for the year 1991-92 was completed and then, it was revised on the basis of an inspection conducted at the residence of the petitioner by the Intelligence Wing of the department on March 26, 1994. At the time of inspection, report and mahazar were prepared and certain records were recovered for further verification. On verification it was found that for the year 1991-92, there was unaccounted transaction to the tune of Rs. 3,73,060. On this ground, the assessment was revised by making an addition of Rs. 26,11,420. According to the petitioner, the inspection was after the assessment year and the entire suppression was unearthed. As the assessing authority has not established that the petitioner had suppressed purchase other than that found out by the Intelligence Officer, any addition over and above found is unwarranted and illegal. In the appeal, the addition was reduced to two times of the suppressed turnover. It is against that the present revision is filed.
2. It is seen that the inspection is made after the assessment year, and the suppression is found from April 1, 1991 to August 23, 1991. The assessing authority has estimated the addition at six times of the suppression found out. The first appellate authority has reduced the addition to two times of the actual suppression. The Tribunal held that the view of the appellate authority is correct and hence dismissed the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is only for a period of four and a half months from April 1, 1991 to August 23, 1991 the suppression was found. It is submitted that no pattern of suppression could be found and hence, it was not proper to fix the quantum of suppression as fixed by the appellate authority. If the accounts are not accepted, a best judgment assessment has to be passed. When it is found that there is variation in stock, etc., it is possible for the officer to make the respective additions to the turnover on the ground that there was suppression. But, when it is found that the suppression was only for a limited period, it cannot be assumed that the suppression existed for a long period. This Court has said that there can be a best judgment assessment if a pattern of suppression is found. No pattern of suppression is found in this case. Hence, we are of the view that the assessing authority was entitled to add only the actual suppression found for the period from April 1, 1991 to August 23, 1991.
In the above view of the matter, the tax revision case is disposed of, modifying the order of the Tribunal.
Order on C.M.P. No. 2634 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 179 of 2000 dismissed.