9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant is a partnership firm carrying on the business of procuring copra for a sister concern by name M. M. Nagalinga Nadar Sons, Quilon, who had their office in the same premises. While purchasing copra the assessee was deducting an estimated quantity as driage and paying the suppliers the price for the net quantity only. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer found that even though during the previous year there was gross purchase of copra to the extent of 52,918.78 quintals, the assessee had accounted by way of sales to the sister concern only 50,212.76 quintals. The Assessing Officer was of the view that as copra purchased on a particular day was transferred to the sister ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was excess claim of driage in the copra account. The Tribunal also noticed that even though the Assessing Officer had started with the quantification of the driage, the addition of Rs. 8,58,016 had been made by way of disallowance of bogus purchases only. The Tribunal ultimately held that the Assessing Officer was correct in the view that the purchase of 139 quintals from Shri Karunakaran and others was not proved to be genuine and so there was justification for disallowance of the sum of Rs. 2,07,582, claimed as the cost for such purchases. The Tribunal also held that there was justification for treating the quantity of 437 quintals as bogus purchase of copra from sundry parties and for making the addition by way of disallowance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed by the assessee is not supported by independent evidence. (2) The assessee has not produced the khatta register and other primary books before the Assessing Officer. (3) The parties in whose names the purchases are claimed have denied the sales to the assessee. (4) Form No. 19B register and the stock register maintained by them were verified by the Assessing Officer and found that there were no such sales to the assessee." It is mainly on the basis of these circumstances the Tribunal has taken the view that the Assessing Officer was correct in taking the view that the purchase of 139 quintals was not proved to be genuine purchase and, therefore, there was justification for the disallowance of the cost claimed for 139 quintals. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
