Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2007 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 195 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTSearch and seizure operation u/s 132 - purchase bills of silver ornaments - treated as non-genuine bills - non-mentioning of purchase in the books of account - addition u/s 68 - whether the Tribunal was justified in unsettling the finding of the CIT(A) by putting the onus on the assessee with regard to the source - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear that the source of M/s. Chouksey Rajnikant and Co., was not essential to be proved inasmuch as the assessee had been able to prove the identity, entry and source of the third party and it should be regarded that the assessee has been able to discharge the onus. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that as far as the transaction relating to purchase of silver made by the assessee-firm from M/s. Chouksey Rajnikant and Co., on credit basis which finds mention in the books of account it could not have been added on the basis of suppression. The second aspect relates to non-mentioning of purchase in the books of account. The explanation preferred was that the partner who was looking after the books of account was not available. The Tribunal has not lent credence to the same. The same is in the realm of facts. We are inclined to accept that the Tribunal has rightly not given credence to the same and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in that regard is absolutely impeccable. Hence, we are disposed to hold that the Tribunal was not justified in arriving at the finding that the purchase of silver vide bill dated October 8, 1985, of M/s. Chouksey Rajnikant and Co., for silver ornaments of 59.547 kgs., amounting to Rs. 1,50,000, which was found recorded in the books of account found at the time of search, was not a genuine purchase and the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the finding that the purchase of silver ornaments weighing 38.990 kgs. for Rs. 99,552 vide bill dated October 28, 1985, was not genuine purchase. Consequently, question No.1 is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and question No.2 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|