TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authorities. The learned counsel's endeavor to urge this Court to examine the issue of bogus purchases by perusing the bills and statements of alleged suppliers in these proceedings cannot be accepted. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act is confined to hearing substantial questions of law and interference on the finding of facts is not warranted if it involves re-appreciating of evidence. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any perversity in the finding of facts. We therefore, find no infirmity in the orders of the appellate authorities deleting the addition made on account of bogus expenses corresponding to the sundry creditors. Disallowance on account of static credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue with Mr. Vipul Agrawal Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing Counsels. Respondent Through: None. J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): CM APPL. 40145/2022 In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 59 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 40146/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. ITA 325 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the said amount on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the AO, which revealed that the claim of the Assessee on account of the expenses incurred by it on purchase of the material to the extent of the aforesaid amount could not be substantiated by reliable documentary evidence and it was not supported by the suppliers. 4. He further states that the ITAT erred in upholding the CIT(A) s order deleting the addition of Rs. 70,79,504/- made by the AO on account of static creditors as the ITAT failed to appreciate that the Assessee had in its written reply surrendered the said amount and offered the same for taxation. He stated that in view of the voluntary admission of the Assessee no further enquiry was required to be conducted by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf by computing the correct income of Assessee. The reliance placed by the ITAT on the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., [2008] 306 ITR 42 is correct. In this appeal as well, the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that it was a case of mistake which led to the Assessee not claiming the set of losses while computing the taxable income in the return. 7. With respect to the disallowance of the addition of Rs. 4,33,89,009/-, which was the amount reflected by the Assessee as its sundry creditors, the CIT(A) observed that the AO had made the said addition in the absence of confirmation from the sundry creditors after concluding that the said figure correspond to the value of bogus purchases. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf with respect to the genuineness of the sundry creditors through bank statements and thereafter deleted the addition. The learned counsel for the Revenue has been unable to bring out any deficiency in the said concurrent finding of the appellate authorities. The learned counsel's endeavor to urge this Court to examine the issue of bogus purchases by perusing the bills and statements of alleged suppliers in these proceedings cannot be accepted. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act is confined to hearing substantial questions of law and interference on the finding of facts is not warranted if it involves re-appreciating of evidence. 8. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any perve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord any material on record to contradict the fact findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly upheld the said deletion. In this appeal as well, the learned counsel for the Revenue has not brought to our attention any material to indicate that the finding of the appellate authorities is incorrect. His sole contention was that since the Assessee initially had surrendered the income, no further enquiry was required to be conducted by the AO. He, however, could not point any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A) while deleting the said addition. 10. Further, qua the disallowance of losses during assessment proceeding, this Court in the case of Jai Parabolic (Supra), at Para 9 has framed the following question of law for determin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
