2016 (6) TMI 1032

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its trading account shown purchase of Rs. 1,12,81,262/- whereas sale was shown at Rs. 1,18,82,877/-. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the assessee had failed to prove the purchases to the extent of Rs. 9,23,142/-. He, therefore, added the aforesaid sum to the income of the assessee and in an appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT deleted the addition. In a further appeal filed by the revenue, the learned Tribunal by its order dated 10th May, 2006 restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer giving one more opportunity to the assessee to prove purchases worth Rs. 9,23,142/- from JKDPL. In spite of opportunity being granted, the assessee was unable to adduce satisfactory evidence as regards the aforesaid purchases fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of primary evidence after totally ignoring all the secondary evidence namely books of accounts, cash book, purchase ledger, profit and loss account and balance sheet etc. of the assessee firm produced by the appellant before the Tribunal in support of its claim when all the items of medicines deals with by the Appellant are M.R.P. (Maximum Retail Price) based products ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in accepting the amount of total sale at Rs. 1,18,82,877/- as disclosed by the Appellant in his books of account but at the same time confirmed the rejection of purchase amounting to Rs. 8,70,641/- as bogus purchase out of the total purchase price at Rs. 1,12,81,262/- as disclosed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e affirmative and against the assessee-appellant. The question of any lapse on the part of the learned Tribunal in accepting the sales at a sum of Rs. 1,18,82,877/- did not arise because the aforesaid figure was furnished by the assessee himself. The assessee admits that the sale was for the aforesaid sum. What the assessee has done is that he tried to reduce the profit by showing artificial purchases. When the assessee was unable to show genuineness of those purchases the amount of profit is bound to be increased. Therefore, the question no.2 is also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X