9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143 (2) was issued. Assessing officer passed an assessment order and determined the total income at Rs. 2,27,940/-. Thereafter the premises were subjected to survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act. Statements were recorded of the appellant. Based on the submissions the assessments were reopened. The assessing office thereafter proposed to add a sum of Rs. 46,61,745/- as bogus creditors in respect of credit purchases made by the appellant from M/s. Magnum Trading Company and M/s. Sharada Enterprises. The assessment order was passed adding the said amounts. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the CIT (Appeals) which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal which was also rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? (vii) Whether the authorities below are justified in law in holding that the appellant is liable to pay interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Bothe the learned counsels submit that the substantial questions of law require to be re-framed. Therefore, they have addressed arguments with regard to the same. 4. On hearing learned counsels we are of the considered view that the following substantial questions of law arise of consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant, in respect of assumption of jurisdiction fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question is answered in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the grounds urged by the appellant with regard to jurisdiction for re-assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 8. In so far as second substantial question of law is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee contends that as a consequence to the additions, gross profit ratio would amount to 58.29%, which is erroneous and that the same cannot be accepted. therefore, the addition is erroneous, it requires to be reconsidered. Some of the material placed by the assessee have not been considered properly by the Tribunal. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 9. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
