9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low: "21. A perusal of the record would suggest that there are two sets of evidence available with the Assessing Officer. On the one hand, he has an information transmitted by the DIT(Investigation) exhibiting the fact that certain concerns of Bhanwar Lal Jain (Mumbai) and Shri Rajendra Sohan Lal Jain were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. The list of all those companies/firms are mentioned in that report. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee has made purchases from three concerns mentioned in the list, i.e. (i) M/s. Daksh Diamonds Purchases of Rs. 36,13,365/ - A.Y. 2007-08 (ii) M/s. jewel Diamonds Purchases of Rs. 50,62,350/ - A.Y. 2007-08 (iii) M/s. Nazar Impex (P) Ltd. Purchases of Rs. 82,17,465/ - A.Y. 2013-14 In the second set of evidence is the material submitted by the assessee before the ld. Assessing Officer. This set contains audited accounts of the assessee, stock register, purchase register, details of payments of purchases through banking channel, details of suppliers/sellers, namely PAN, VAT, TIN, CST nos. 22. The assessee has produced quantitative details, which were verifiable and also tal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return. In view of the above discussion in totality, the purchases made by the appellant from M/s Padmesh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. is found to be acceptable and the consequent disallowance resulting in addition to income made for Rs. 19,39,60,866/-, is directed to be deleted." The ITAT by its judgment dated 16th May, 2014 relied on the selfsame reasoning and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Likewise, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 5th July, 2017, affirmed the judgments of the CIT and ITAT as concurrent factual findings, which have not been shown to be perverse and, therefore, dismissed the appeal stating that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. » In these circumstances, the Review Petitions are dismissed. J. (R.R Nariman) J. (Indu Malhotra) New Delhi; August 21, 2019 24. A perusal of the above decision would reveal that Hon'ble Supreme Court has concurred w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross- examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of 5.1. Rooplal &Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary Delhi &Ors. (Appeal Civil) 5363-64 of 1997 Date of Judgment 14/12/1999 {1999 SUPP (5) SCR 310}), because the Coordinate Benches in various cases as referred in composite order of these appeals under consideration, specifically Amritsar Bench in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar {ITA No.563, 564, 564, 567, 343, 571, 572, 573, 574 and 232/Asr/2016 decided on 30.03.2017] has decided the similar and identical issue which was mainly relied upon by the assessee for its cases, however the Hon'ble A.M has taken the contrary view". A copy of this decision has been placed on the record and I have perused it. But to my mind, this decision contemplates that as and when interpretation of any statute is required, then, the Benches should have adopted a consistent approach and should not ignore the decision of the Coordinate Bench. In the present case, the decision is based on purely factual aspect and a slightest variation in the facts would change the results. For example- had the assessee not made payments through account payee cheque of its purchases, there must be different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
