2016 (8) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition u/s.69B of Rs. 8,82,18,073/- made towards understatement of the cost of imported machinery? C. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the addition of Rs. 84 lacs as deemed income u/s.69B made on account of undisclosed cash payment for the construction of the assessee's factory? F. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the addition of Rs. 7.59 lacs as deemed income u/s.69B made on a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... advocate appearing for the revenue submitted that the machinery was imported from Italy and the supplier had issued two invoices for US $ 47 lakhs and US $ 6,75,000 respectively aggregating to US $ 53,75,000 as per pages 8 and 9 of Annexure A/1. He submitted that the value of machinery capitalized in the books of assessee was only US $ 35 lakhs. Thus the investment to the extent of US $ 18,75,000 equivalent to Rs. 8,82,18,750 represented unaccounted investment by the assessee which was added by the Assessing Officer u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') after confronting the assessee with the material found in the course of search and rejecting the assessee's objection in this regard. 5.1 Mr. Parikh submitted that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the manner of entries made in the books of account that is material for the computation of income under the provisions of the Act. 6. Mr. Davawala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the assessee has only bought the machine for US $ 35 lakhs. All the machines were not shipped to India. Some were shipped to USA. He submitted that the payments were not made by the assessee. He submitted that if the payment is made by a non-resident company outside India to the supplier, it cannot be regarded to be the payment made by the assessee and will not come within the purview of section 69B of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X