TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 2 crores per month. The A.O. add ₹ 9 crores, upon an understanding that the licence fee increased was arbitrary. The CIT(Appeals), however, deleted this entire amount. The Revenue’s Appeal succeeded substantially to the extent of ₹ 6 crores. No justification to interfere with the ITAT’s findings, which are also factual as far as this issue goes. - ITA 892/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA For the Appellant :Mr Ruchir Bhatia and Mr Puneet Rai, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr M.P.Rastogi and Mr K.N.Ahuja, Advocates. O R D E R 1. Admit. Mr M.P.Rastogi, Advocate accepts notice. 2. The two questions of law, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch and seizure operation was conducted in respect of M/s. Flex Group of Companies on 23.02.2006, which led to the notice being issued under Section 153A of the Act to the Assessee. In the course of search assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer added the sum of ₹ 2.32 crores, which the Assessee claim towards trade credit. The CIT(Appeal) directed deletion of this amount after due verifications of the record by expressing his satisfaction that the credits claimed were genuine and in accord with the documents and the records produced by the Assessee. The CIT s findings are as follows :- 10.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant and remand report submitted by the A.O. It is obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers from whom substantial amount of advance is received are limited companies. It is not the case of the A.O. that the advance is outstanding in the books for the last many years. The advance is adjusted against the sale in the immediate next year. As such, the addition made by the A.O of ₹ 2,32,13,640/- is deleted. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the above finding. The Court is of the opinion that the question urged is purely factual. Since the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the ITAT are concurrent, they reflected that the trade advances received by the applicant were adjusted against the sales made to them in the subsequent years. As such, no question of law arises. 7. As far as the second issue, i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
