9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PONENT : RULE SERVED COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of Tax Appeal No.1358/2007, the Appellant Department has challenged the order dated 30.11.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' in ITA No.1601/Ahd/1994 for the Assessment Year : 1990-1991 whereas by way of Tax Appeal No.1207/2007 the Appellant Department has challenged the order dated 30.11.2006 of the above Tribunal in ITA No.2165/Ahd/1995 for the Assessment Year : 1991-1992. Both the above appeals pertain to one common assessee. 2. While admitting Tax Appeal No.1358/2007 on 29.02.2008, the following substantial question of law was framed by the Court for consideration :- Whether the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/10 not recorded, and (iv) yield at 86.10% as against 85.06 in the last year i.e. a burning loss of 13.90% as against 2.4% admitted by the Directors. The CIT (A) has held that all the grounds individually and cumulatively were not sufficient to reject the books of account in dealing with each and every items. He has admitted fresh evidence, which were not verifiable by the Assessing Officer. The first one is the sale bill of 6.4.1990 and certain other bills to justify the valuation of closing stock at the market price. As regards the second contention, RG.1 register and RT.12 were taken into consideration, which were checked by Excise authorities from time to time and the contention of the Revenue is that records what is entered therein a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he arguments of the assessee namely (i) that the registers were not found from the possession of partner or employee of the assessee (ii) that all the Directors of Mardia Copper Extrusion Ltd. are not partners of the assessee firm (iii) no evidence relating to unaccounted job work was found from the possession of assessee and the addition made by AO is purely on presumption basis, (iv) Assessee was not confronted with the said registers and quantity shown in Excise Challan i.e. 57F(2) were tallying with the receipts in the registers. Reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Prakash Oil Industries and Ginning Factory (supra) is also misplaced as the facts of that case are different from the facts of assessee's c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
