TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also upheld by the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. In the current year also an addition of Rs. 1,77,36,885 has been made by the AO disallowing the purchases from 17 parties out of the 23 parties involved in the last year. The addition by the AO has been made on the basis of his findings and decisions in the asst. yr. 1989-90. The sales as disclosed by the assessee has been accepted and no addition has been made in this respect. In addition to the above, further addition were made in respect of contribution towards shares capital, Objection has also been raised by the Revenue for relief allowed by the CIT(A) in respect of calculation of tax under s. 115J and calculation of depreciation. 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to addition made in respect of purchase of raw-material. Mr. D.K. Biswas, the learned Departmental Representative, argued that in the assessment made for the preceding assessment year viz., the asst. yr. 1989-90, the purchases made from the 17 parties were not allowed deduction for the detailed reasons recorded in the assessment order. He further argued that the assessee was specifically required to furnish the detailed addresses of the parties and in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availability of the parties at a particular point of time which was beyond the control of the assessee-company. It was further pointed out to the AO that since all the payments were made through the bank account, the genuineness of these transactions for purchases are verifiable from the bank s records. Mr. Sampat Kr. Jain, the learned authorised representative, appearing on behalf of the assessee-company submitted that it was not physically possible for the assessee-company to manufacture M.S. ingots without purchasing M.S. scrap. The AO has not disputed the fact that the assessee-company had maintained quantitative record as per Central Excise Rules and therefore his action in disbelieving the purchase simply for non-production of those parties was not justified. He further argued that from a plain reading of the assessment order for asst. yr. 1990-91, it will be very much clear and apparent that the addition by the AO has been made on the basis of his decision for asst. yr. 1989-90 against the principles of res judicata submitted that the decision of the AO in asst. yr. 1989-90 stand reversed by the CIT(A) and the order of the CIT(A) has been upheld by the Tribunal, Guwahati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntrovert the above findings of the CIT(A). In view of the findings, the purchase transactions cannot be held as not genuine. 9. Further, we find that the AO has made the additions on the basis of his finding and decisions in the asst. yr. 1989-90. In appeal before the CIT(A) the decision of the AO in the asst. yr. 1989-90 in respect of purchase of raw materials, holding them as not genuine was reversed. The learned CIT(A) while passing the order had duly heard the assessee as well as the AO. The decision of the CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati passed in ITA No. 132(Gau) of 1994, dt. 28th Feb., 2001. The IT Department has also accepted the decision and has not filed any appeal on this point before the Hon ble Guwahati High Court. The facts of the case are similar in this year also. As such the issue is already settled in favour of the assessee. 10. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the transactions of purchase of raw-materials are genuine and acceptable. 11. Taking into consideration of all these facts and factors and following the order of the Tribunal in the earlier year in the case of the assessee, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gued the addition under s. 68 can always be made in respect of share capital. Mr. Sampat Kr. Jain, the learned authorised representative of the assessee, vehemently supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee received share application money of Rs. 5,00,000 from M/s Kabia Iron Steel Co. (P) Ltd. M/s Kabia Iron Steel Co. (P) Ltd. was an income-tax assessee and assessed under GIR No. K-5/Ward-1/ITO/Hisar. The investment in shares was duly reflected in the balance sheet of M/s Kabia Iron Steel Co. (P) Ltd. as on 31st March, 1990. He also submitted that the AO has observed as follows: "The assessee furnished a confirmation letter from the concerned company in support of the shares application money as per which the company was assessed by the ITO, Ward-1/Hisar (Haryana) Vide GIR No. K-5." "The concerned company also filed a copy of its balance-sheet as on 31st March, 1990, and a copy of a T.A. bill in respect of Sri R.P. Singh before the AO at Hisar, which were forwarded to this office". "As per the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1990, the only source of company fund was share application money amounting to Rs. 24,00,000 shown as received during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supported the order of the AO and the learned authorised representative relied upon the order of the CIT(A). We find nothing wrong in the direction of the CIT(A) and accordingly the same is upheld. 17. Ground Nos. 10 and 11 are directed against the direction of the CIT(A) for computation of book profit under s. 115J of the IT Act. 18. We find that only direction given by the CIT(A) was to look into the objection and make proper adjustments as per s. 115J. We find nothing wrong in the directions and there is no scope of grievance by the Revenue on such directions. As such the order of the CIT(A) is upheld on this point also. 19. In the cross-objection in ground No. 1, the point has been raised that the learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition of Rs. 1,77,36,085 made by the AO on account of alleged ingenuine purchase erred in not considering the argument and submission of the assessee s counsel, that the purchases could not be disbelieved when the opening and closing, stock have been accepted by the AO. This cross-objection has already been disposed of in favour of the assessee. Cross-objection Nos. 2 to 7 are in support of the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) s order had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
