9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Adv with Aasifa Khan JUDGEMENT 1 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 30.04.2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 2001-02. 2. The following question of law has been formulated for consideration of this court. "Whether on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)'). By an order dated 19.08.2004, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer interalia to the extent Rs.1.33 crores disallowed as bogus purchases. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2004 of the CIT(A), the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 while allowing the appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 crores by holding that the purchases were not bogus. 6. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that the Tribunal could not have relied only upon the stock statement i.e. the reconciliation statement to conclude that the purchases were genuine. Therefore, he submits that the question formulated is a substantial question of law and needs to be decided by this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases were infact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have disallowed the deduction of Rs.1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
