2006 (1) TMI 84 - HC - Income Tax

Income from Undisclosed Sources - Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition on account of fictitious purchases of colour and chemicals - Revenue has not disputed the details of the closing stock. Therefore the Tribunal has found that existence of the raw materials purchased cannot be doubted and if that is the situation there could be no case for disputing the purchases. The Tribunal has further recorded that there was no material on record to conclude that in addition to the alleged fictitious purchases there were also some other purchases for the same material under different invoices which could be reflected in the closing stock. Tribunal has by way of illustration analysed the account of one of the items appearing as annexure 6 in the paper book filed before the Tribunal and come to the irresistible conclusion that the quantity remaining in the closing stock is only out of the purchases effected by the assessee. It is in the light of the aforesaid findings that the Tribunal has held that no addition was warranted on account of alleged fictitious purchases

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of fictitious purchases of colours and chemicals.
2. Recalling of earlier order by the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition on account of fictitious purchases of colours and chemicals:
The case involved a private limited company engaged in the business of bleaching, dyeing, printing, and processing of grey cloth. The Assessing Officer alleged that the purchases of colours and chemicals by the assessee were fictitious, leading to an addition of Rs. 6,40,960. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially upheld the addition, and both the Revenue and the assessee appealed against this decision. The Tribunal initially allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the assessee's appeal. However, the Tribunal later recalled its order and passed a revised order partly allowing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found that the evidence supported the existence of raw materials purchased by the assessee, and there was no evidence of inflated purchase prices or funds being returned to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that no addition was warranted on account of alleged fictitious purchases, as purchases are deductible while computing profits. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the order was based on a factual analysis of the evidence presented.

Issue 2: Recalling of earlier order by the Appellate Tribunal:
The High Court clarified the sequence of events leading to the Tribunal recalling its earlier order dated August 20, 1987, and passing a revised order on February 26, 1988. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's order recalling the earlier decision amounted to a review, which was beyond its jurisdiction. The High Court analyzed the orders passed by the Tribunal and determined that the order dated December 2, 1987, recalling the earlier decision, was separate from the order dated February 26, 1988, disposing of the appeals. As the Revenue did not challenge the December 2, 1987 order, the High Court held that the second issue did not arise from the impugned order dated February 26, 1988. Therefore, the High Court left the second question unanswered, focusing on the specific legal aspects of the case.

In conclusion, the High Court resolved the first issue in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence in determining the legitimacy of purchases. The High Court clarified the procedural aspects regarding the recalling of the earlier order by the Tribunal, highlighting the distinction between the orders passed in separate proceedings. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal and factual considerations, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case's complexities.