9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchased had been duly recorded in the books of accounts, which are duly audited; there is nothing on record to show that the purchases had been made outside the regular books of accounts; in the absence rejection of account books and of any adverse material, the addition of the income was held not to be justified. 2. The substantial questions of law are sought to be raised by the Revenue for consideration of this Court are as under:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of ; the case the ITAT is right in law in not considering that credit purchases and sales stated to be recorded in the books of account are sham transactions and an afterthought after the seizure of goods by Food & Civil Supplies Department. ii) Whether on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the circumstances of the case the ITAT is right in law in ignoring the fact that all the parties who purchased and sold sugar have done transactions without making actual payments and such kind of transactions i.e. as is where is basis were never done in their business and thus afterthought. vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is right in law in ignoring the facts that purchases shown by the assessee are nothing but accommodation by various parties as these were mere bills without the transactions of payments. viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT is right in law in giving a finding that the Department has accepted the books of account whereas the AO in para 1.9 su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wner of the godowns which had been let out, was also taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. The persons, who had purchased the sugar and sold on as is where is basis were also examined. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the assessee that the sugar had been purchased on credit though noticing that the parties had issued bills and accordingly added a sum of Rs. 26,64,68,073/- in the assessment order dated 30.12.2011. 5. The assessee took the matter in appeal, which was dismissed on the ground that Bharat Bhushan, the proprietor, before the Food & Supplies Department, had admitted that he owned the sugar which had been purchased from different sources but never stated that he had sold the same. It was only on afterthought in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the confirmations and the ledger accounts of the appellant in the books of the said vendors were also noticed. Merely because the bills were not shown to the raiding party which is the Department of Food & Civil Supplies and the statement given to the said department would not have any applicability for deciding the issue in hand. The question involved before the said authority was whether that much amount of sugar was permissible to be kept. 7. Once the delivery of the sugar was taken over on as is where is basis at the godowns itself by taking the same on rent with the consent of the landlord and it has been noticed that the Manager's statement was recorded twice and he got confused as to the factum whether the same was lying vacan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
