9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of bogus purchases and bogus labour charges without appreciating the factual aspect and by ignoring the manifest evidence relied by the Assessing Officer? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that statement of Shri Anilkumar Chawla was recorded under coercive pressure and said statement was not given by free will ignoring the fact that statement was recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the I. T. Act, 1961?". 3 For the subject Assessment Year, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 16th October, 2008 under Section 143(3) of the Act, determinin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement made to the DCIT, Navsari to the effect that he had not executed any labour jobs or made any sales to the RespondentAssessee were retracted. Besides, it records the fact that in the appeal filed by Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla in his assessment proceedings, the CIT(A), Valsad had on consideration of all facts, taken a view that the transaction between the Respondent Assessee and Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla, were genuine. In the light of the above, it held that there was no reason to consider the same to be bogus or mere accommodation entires. On merits also, the CIT(A) found the confirmation letters from Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla, copies of purchase invoices indicating all details of goods purchased and Bank Statement, indicating payments ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal have concurrently rendered the finding of fact that payments made for purchase of goods and for labour jobs to Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla, were genuine. This finding of fact is further supported by the fact that the CIT(A), Valsad while dealing with the appeal filed by Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla has examined these very transaction to conclude that they were genuine. Therefore, so far as question (a) is concerned, there are concurrent findings of fact by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal. These findings are not shown to be perverse. In view of above, proposed question (a) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not entertained. 8 So far as Question (b) is concerned, both the authorities CIT (A) as well as Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
