TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITR 283/1995 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2006 - Y.R. MEENA ACTG. G.J. and A.S. DAVE J. JUDGMENT 1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court : "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's findings are borne out from the record and whether the same are not perverse, whereby the additions of Rs.3,71,000/- and Rs.7,000/- respectively were deleted." 2. To find out wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... totalling to Rs.3,71,000/- relates to business transactions of the assessee should not be accepted at the face value. When Shri A.B. Parikh admits in his reply to question no.6 that those facts needed verification and he was without assistance of as accountant, the transactions so recorded, in our view, are undoubtedly related to the personal transactions of Shri A.B. Parikh with M/s. Gujarat Fert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... min was examined and he clearly stated that he was one of the trustees of Mukund Trust and Mukund Trust was doing the business of manufacturing of mixed fertilizers since 10.6.1980. So, it is not all true to say that Mukund Trust was just created to link up the transactions missing in the books of the assessee firm. The initial statements made by Shri A.B. Parikh on 22.9.1980 should have been imme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have no hesitation in deleting the same. The addition of Rs.3,71,000/- made in respect of the alleged transactions with M/s. Gujarat Fertilizers as also the addition of Rs.7,000/- made in respect of alleged transaction with Shri Jadeja are, therefore, deleted." 3. It is true that one of the partner of the firm has said in his statement something about the transactions, but in the same statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
