9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- For the assessment year 2013-14, the appellant had filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 71,15,290/- by declaring a net profit of 0.91%. While completing the assessment, the assessing authority considered the appellant's claim for deduction of the amount spent for purchasing paddy from small farmers and, which was used in connection with the manufacture of food products by the appellant. Although the appellant had furnished the names of 8503 persons from whom he had supposedly purchased paddy, the assessing authority found that no confirmation was received from any of those persons to support the appellant's contention that they were the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have been made. The First Appellate Authority, however, found that the price declared as the purchase price of paddy from unregistered farmers was Rs. 14.92 per Kg as against the average price of Rs. 14.82 per Kg at which the paddy was purchased from registered farmers and farmers societies. He therefore, disallowed the expenses claimed towards the purchase of paddy to the extent of Rs. 0.15 per Kg in respect of those purchases effected from unregistered dealers. The net addition made to the income declared by the appellant assessee was thus confined to Rs. 16,14,411/-. 4. Both the assessee and the revenue preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee's appeal was in the nature of a cross objection to the revenue' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Paddy) used for production, in the facts and circumstances of the case. d) Has not the tribunal erred while deciding the appeal filed by the revenue, in not bearing in mind the decisions of Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat in [2020]424 ITR 338 (Bom) : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rishbhdev Technocable Ltd; and [2013]355 ITR 290(Guj) : Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. respectively, where it was held that whether parties from whom such purchases were or whether such purchases themselves were bogus, not the entire purchase price but the profit embedded in purchase alone is liable to tax. 6. We have heard Sri. Marthanda Varma Pandalai. K the learned counsel appearing for the appellant asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowing the expenses stated by the assessee to have been incurred for deriving that income. In the instant case, as rightly noticed by the First Appellate Authority, it is not in dispute that the assessing authority did not verify the books of accounts including the Stock Register, Ledger, Cash Purchase Register, etc., to see whether the allegation regarding bogus purchases of raw material (paddy) was justified or not. In the absence of such verification, we are of the view that there was no justification for proceeding on the assumption that there was no purchase of paddy from unregistered farmers, and for making additions to the income declared by the assessee by disallowing the expenses claimed under Section 37 (1) of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
