TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown to be at the instance of the assessee-applicant in fact involves cross References for Assessment Years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. In fact, there are as many as 11 References arising from 7 Appeals before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has drawn up a consolidated statement of case as broadly the controversy is divided into two issues. 2. In so far as the assessee-applicant is concerned the following six questions have been raised under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the evidence in the form of certificates and statements filed during the course of assessment proceedings ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the purchases of tins plates for manufacture of this were not made on the basis of weight but were made on the basis of number of component parts? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of 4266 tins in A.Y. 1983-84 and the value of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the aforesaid parties had become conduit pipes between the asessee and the sellers of the raw materials ? At the instance of Revenue : For Assessment Years 1984-85 : (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order made by the CIT(A) whereby he had confirmed the addition to the extent of 25% of the amounts claimed in respect of bogus and sham purchases? Assessment Years 1985-86 : (4) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in confirming the order made by the CIT(A) whereby he had confirmed the addition to the extent of 25% of the amounts claimed in respect of bogus and sham purchases?" 6. The facts in relation to these questions have been summarised by the Tribunal in the statement of case as under : "7. During the asstt. year 1984-85 the assessee had made purchases of oilcake from the following parties: Rs. 1. M/s.Shyam Inds. Rajkot 8,11,776 2. M/s.Sailesh Inds. Junagadh 7,94,078 3. Ganesh Inds. Morvi 12,85,625 4. M/s.Geeta Inds. Keshod 2,08,732 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our parties for Assessment Years 1984-85 and six parties for Assessment Years 1985-86 from whom the goods were shown to have been purchased were not traceable and hence, admittedly, the goods in the form of raw materials were purchased at a price which was lower than the market price, that no purchase bills at the said price were available, and accordingly, apparent sellers were providing accommodation entries to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to enter the goods purchased from third parties in the regular Books of Account. Accordingly, Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that 25% of the value of the purchase price could not be treated as genuine, or in other words,the purchase price to the extent of 25% was inflated and hence the addition made by the Assessing Officer was accordingly restricted to 25% of the amount paid to the parties from whom the Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire purchases. 8. Being aggrieved with the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) both the Revenue and the assessee approached the Tribunal with cross Appeals. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides confirmed the order made by Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee,feeling a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or found to be false by the Tribunal so as to warrant any addition. 10. Mr. B.B.Naik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue submitted that the order made by the Assessing Officer was a detailed order. That for the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer the Tribunal was not justified in holding the purchases to be genuine and granting relief to the extent of 75% without any basis. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties it is apparent that no interference is called for in the impugned order of Tribunal dated 29.04.1994 read with order dated 29.09.1994 made in Miscellaneous Application. In the principal order the Tribunal has recorded following findings : "8.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. In our opinion the action of the CIT(A) confirming 25% of the amounts claimed is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for. The CIT(A) has gone through the purchase prices of the raw material prevalent at the time and rightly came to the conclusion that the disallowance to the extent of 25% was called for. It is established that the parties were not traceable; they opened the bank acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
