9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of 25% only out of the addition made in respect of bogus purchases from G.M. Traders and Steel Trading Co.? [B]. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the addition of Rs.7,88,590/- made on account of inflation in purchase cost of MMTC?. [C]. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record so as to confirm addition to the extent of 25% only out of the addition make in respect of cash withdrawal from MMTC/GMT? [D]. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts on record so as to confirm addition to the extent of 25% only out of the addition made in respect of purchases from N.D. Steel Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- respectively, in all Rs.49,31,050/-. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record was of the view that though the aforesaid two parties had issued bills but actually purchases had been made in cash which must have resulted into saving the cost, but the purchase price had been inflated. The Commissioner (Appeals) was further of the view that had the intention of the assessee been fair and bonafide, there was no need to make purchases from the said concerns and then withdraw cash through the employees of the assessee. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the ends of justice would be met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aveat, opposed admission of the appeal submitting that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by various decisions of this Court as well as a decision of the Supreme Court. The learned advocate placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2009] 316 ITR 274 [Guj] as well as in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Adinath Industries, [2001] ITR 476. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 288 ITR 10 [SC]. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are similar to proposed question [A] wherein the Tribunal has restricted the addition to 25% on similar facts. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the said grounds of appeal do not give rise to any question of law. As regards proposed question [B] which pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.7,88.590/- made on account of inflation of expenses paid to Metal and Machine Trading Co. (MMTC), the Assessing Officer has found that MMTC was a partnership firm of Shri Nitin Gajjar along with his father and brother operating from Bhavnagar. A perusal of their transactions with the assessee indicated that there is some inflation of expenses as detailed in paragraph 6.1 of the assessment order. After considering the evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) and has found that the assessee had made purchases from MMTC at prevailing market rates and that MMTC had incurred certain expenditure in engaging personnel in the office and other operations and would make some income from the entire exercise. In the circumstances the purchases made by the assessee from MMTC would not be hit by the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It is not the case of the revenue that the Tribunal has taken into account any irrelevant material or that any relevant material has not been taken into consideration. In the absence of any material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on depreciation only if at all the Assessing Officer conclusively proved that the purchases of crane and other parts are bogus. Upon appreciation of the material on record the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer has simply brushed aside all the evidence on account of technical infirmities and that the evidence such as octroi receipt; hypothecation of the crane to the Bank; existence of the crane even till date with the assessee; conclusively proved that the crane was purchased and it was in use even as on date with the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly found that there was no scope for any disallowance and accordingly deleted the disallowance made on account of purchase of crane and allowed the depreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
