TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 36,28,531/= claimed to have been made from other parties ? {C} Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that because the Assessing Officer of the supplier company treated the URD purchases as genuine, the consequential sales made by Amber Trading Company to the assessee is also genuine ? {D} Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT [A] in deleting the addition of ₹ 31,37,41,680/= made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases from Amber Trading Company to that extent as bogus and nongenuine ? {E} Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,01,82,782/= made on account of disallowance of speculation loss relying on the decision of this Court in case of Pankaj Oil Mills v. CIT, 115 ITR 824 when the said decision was in favour of the revenue and the facts of the said case are identical to the facts of the assessee s case ? {F} Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of ₹ 19,31,769/= ? {G} Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in applying the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Indo Nippon Chemicals Company Limited even after the amendment to the provisions of Section 145A by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 1 st April 1999 ? Questions {A} {B} pertain to the purchases made by the assessee from one M/s. Vishal Traders. Assessing Officer doubted such purchases and deleted entire amount of ₹ 2.25 Crores [rounded off] for such purchases. The Tribunal reduced the addition to 5% of the said amount. In case of this very assessee, under similar circumstances, 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} dated 17 th April 2013 raising following questions for our consideration : {A} Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 5% of the total bogus purchases of ₹ 61,67,077/= made from M/s. Vishal Traders ? {B} Whether the Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal before the Tribunal. Revenue urged that the entire purchases were bogus and therefore Assessing Officer s order adding the entire amount to the income of the assessee should be restored. Assessee contended that the purchases were genuine and the payments were made through cheques, no disallowance therefore should be made at all. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment noted that the GP rate and the net profit rate of the year under consideration were better than the previous year. The stock register was properly maintained and the purchases in question were reflected in such stock register and finding that there were internal contradictions in the statements made by the representative of M/s. Vishal Traders and said Shri Madanlal Chandak, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 5% of the amount in question. Revenue has therefore preferred this appeal and also filed Tax Appeal No. 842 of 2013 raising this question. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the entire issue is based on materials on record. The Tribunal did not accept the Revenue s stand that the purchases were bogus, in the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cent past. Under the circumstances, no question of law arises. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. These questions are therefore not considered. Questions {C} {D} pertain to purchases made by the assessee through one M/s. Amber Trading Company, Dahod. Assessing Officer disallowed the purchases on the ground that M/s. Amber Trading Company had made purchases from an unregistered dealer. He, in fact, doubted the purchases by M/s. Amer Trading Company itself. Learned counsel for the assessee would however correctly point out that CIT [A] as well as the Tribunal both noted that in the case of the assessment of M/s. Amber Trading Company itself, such purchases were accepted and found genuine. That being the situation, the Tribunal in our opinion correctly did not accept the Revenue s appeal, making following observations : 3.9 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the disallowance in respect of purchases from Amber Trading Company was made by the Assessing Officer on this basis that out of total purchases claimed by the assessee from Amber Trading Company of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
