9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2,00,200 in the paddy account. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has found that certain statements of certain farmers were recorded by the Inspector of Income-tax, but it were recorded behind the back of the assessee. The assessee was not given opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. Statements were written in Hindi, whereas the farmers were illiterate or semi-literate. Affidavits were filed by the assessee of each and every farmer, which have been relied upon by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the said finding has been affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with respect to sundry credi- tors has given the findings that on consideration of statements of 20 far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of account during the course of the assessment proceedings but he did not find any mistake in the books of account. Even the Assessing Officer failed to prove any transaction as non-genuine. The Inspector made enquires behind the back of the assessee-firm and without affording any opportunity, the Inspector furnished his report to the Assessing Officer. When the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee-firm with the report of the Inspector, the assessee-firm contacted all the farmers and requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons under section 131 of the Act. All the farmers appeared before the Assessing Officer who examined them individually and all of them confirmed that they sold their crops to the assessee-firm. They have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sulted in loss of Rs. 2,00,200. The Assessing Officer required the explanation of the assessee in this regard and it was submitted by the assessee that because there was no storage facility/godown, he sold the same as per the prevailing rate of the market on that day as per vikray parchi issued by the Krishi Upam Mandi Samiti. With respect to deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,200, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given the following reasons : "I have perused the assessment order and reports of the Assessing Officer received during the appeal proceedings and considered the submissions of the appellant as well as rejoinders to various reports of the Assessing Officer. On March 22, 2006, the appellant purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as evasion of income-tax. In these facts and circumstances, it is my considered view that the decision of the Assessing Officer was based on conjectures and surmises. The disallowance of Rs. 2,00,200 is not confirmed. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is accepted." The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the aforesaid findings. In view of the above, it would not be appropriate to take a different view in the matter. We find no substantial questions of law involved in this appeal. Apart from that, even the appeal cannot be entertained on the aforesaid ground as tax would be below Rs. 1 lakh and it was prevailing instruction at that relevant time that the appeal could not have been preferred on the aforesaid is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
