TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the purchases made on the same day carried the same price. This would substantially eliminate the angle of the purchase price being artificially inflated. Additionally, the Tribunal also noted other parameters such as higher net and gross profit rates of the present year compared to the earlier years of the recent past. No question of law arises. - Tax Appeal No. 840 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2014 - Mr. Akil Kureshi and Ms. Sonia Gokani, JJ. Mr MR BHATT Sr Advocate with Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant. Mr B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent. ORAL ORDER Mr. Akil Kureshi Revenue has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad { Tribunal for short} dated 17th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heques. That full details of the goods received were available on the record. That the truck numbers were mentioned in the bills; delivery challans, weigh slips, inward register, goods notes and Lab. reports of the materials received were maintained and produced before the Assessing Officer. It was also pointed out that the rate at which the material was purchased matched exactly with the rate of the purchases made on the same day from other suppliers. The assessee also contended that one Mr. Madanlal Chandak was controlling M/s. Vishal Traders and supplying the goods in the name of the said agency, though he himself was supplying the goods since he did not have registration for such purpose. Assessee also pointed out that the purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire issue is based on materials on record. The Tribunal did not accept the Revenue s stand that the purchases were bogus, in the sense that no material was received. Perusing the order of the Tribunal and the material discussed at length by the CIT [A] in his order, this issue gets further support. If we were to therefore not depart from the Tribunal s view that the material was actually received for which payments were made, only question would be did the Tribunal err in adding 5% of the purchases and not 25% as was vehemently urged before us by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Here also, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error so as to give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal looking to the material noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
