9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,28,531/- made from M/s. Vishal Traders ?" {B} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that provisions of Section 40A (3) of the Act are not attracted to the cash purchases of Rs. 36,28,531/- claimed to have been made from other parties ?" Issue pertains to addition of Rs. 36.28 lakhs [rounded off] made by the Assessing Officer, out of which ultimately, the Tribunal retained only 5%. In case of this very assessee, such a question in connection with the earlier assessment year came up for consideration in Tax Appeal No. 840 of 2013. We have rejected the Revenue's appeal making following observations :" Revenue has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {"Tribunal" for short} date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ull details of the goods received were available on the record. That the truck numbers were mentioned in the bills; delivery challans, weigh slips, inward register, goods notes and Lab. reports of the materials received were maintained and produced before the Assessing Officer. It was also pointed out that the rate at which the material was purchased matched exactly with the rate of the purchases made on the same day from other suppliers. The assessee also contended that one Mr. Madanlal Chandak was controlling M/s. Vishal Traders and supplying the goods in the name of the said agency, though he himself was supplying the goods since he did not have registration for such purpose. Assessee also pointed out that the purchases were made throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on materials on record. The Tribunal did not accept the Revenue's stand that the purchases were bogus, in the sense that no material was received. Perusing the order of the Tribunal and the material discussed at length by the CIT [A] in his order, this issue gets further support. If we were to therefore not depart from the Tribunal's view that the material was actually received for which payments were made, only question would be did the Tribunal err in adding 5% of the purchases and not 25% as was vehemently urged before us by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Here also, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error so as to give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal looking to the material noted above, retained portion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
