TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to withhold the best evidence and relies on the secondary evidence even assuming that any secondary piece of evidence was adduced then the presumption in law shall be against the assessee. The question of any lapse on the part of the Tribunal in accepting the sales at a sum of ₹ 1,18,82,877/- did not arise because the aforesaid figure was furnished by the assessee himself. The assessee admits that the sale was for the aforesaid sum. What the assessee has done is that he tried to reduce the profit by showing artificial purchases. When the assessee was unable to show genuineness of those purchases the amount of profit is bound to be increased. - Decided against the assessee. - ITA No. 316 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2016 - Girish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to a sum of ₹ 8,70,641/-. There is some doubt whether the amount is ₹ 8,70,641 or the sum of ₹ 8,70,671. But that is not of much importance. In an appeal preferred by the assessee, the learned Tribunal confirmed the addition relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Transport Corporation of India and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Agency Limited, where it was held that if the assessee failed to establish the fact necessary to support his claim for deduction, the claim was not admissible. It is against this order of the learned Tribunal that the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee. The question whether the assessee had purchased the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention has not been drawn by Mr.Biswas to any discussion as regards any secondary piece of evidence to show that the aforesaid purchases were made. On the contrary, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in that regard is as follows:- the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases from JKDPL as claimed by it We have enquired of Mr.Biswas and from his submission we understand that the purchase bills of less than ₹ 20,000/- were not produced. The payments, according to him, were made all in cash. The stock register was not produced. The absence of these documents go to suggest that the purchase from JKDPL may be a bogus purchase. In any event the view taken by the assessing officer, CIT(A) and the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
