9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , proposed question (a) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not entertained. Statement of Shri Anilkumar Chawla was recorded under coercive pressure - Held that:- The authorities CIT (A) as well as Tribunal have recorded the fact that the statement given to the DCIT, Valsad on 24th December, 2008 was a statement made in view of coercion and the same was retracted soon after i.e. 27th December, 2008. This also is a finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse in any manner. In view of the above, the question (b) does not give rise to any substantial question of law. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1504 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. A. R. Malhotra with Mr. N. A. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent to Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla, are bogus. Consequently, the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was reopened and the notice under Section 148 of the Act, was issued. 4 By an order dated 21st December, 2009, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Act, holding that the payment of labour charges to the extent of ₹ 59.88 Crores and payment made for purchases to the extent of ₹ 2.32 Crores to Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla, were bogus. This on the basis of the statement made on oath by Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla that it had not carried out any labour job nor had he made any sales to the Respondent-Assessee. Thus determining the Respondent's income by Assessment Order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal records the fact that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the correctness of the books of account of the Respondent-Assesssee as he had not invoked Section 145(3) of the Act. In fact, it observes that the Assessing Officer had accepted the opening stock, closing stock, sales and gross profits as declared by the Respondent-Assessee. The impugned order further records that the only reason to disallow the payments made to Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla on account of labour charges on account of purchase from him, was a statement dated 24th December, 2008 made by Mr. Anilkumar Chahwalla to the DCIT, Navsari. However, the above statement loses its value in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
