9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were received for purchase of yarn as an Advance. Thereafter, yarn was not supplied and consequently refund was given. Thus, view taken on the remand report is not perverse. View taken by the authorities under the Act is on the basis evidence before is leading to a finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse. Therefore, the question raised would not give rise to substantial question of law. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1386 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2018 - M.S.SANKLECHA And SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. K.Gopal with Mr. Tanmay Phadke i/by Jitendra Singh, Advocates for Appellant Mr. P. C. Chhotaray, for the Respondent ORDER P. C. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961('Act') challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issued in March, 2003 exceed ₹ 50,000/. The Appellant explained that the above amounts represented advances received from dealers of yarn, to whom the supply of yarn could not be made in view of objections of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. However, in view of the increase in price, the dealers refused to take back the amounts. Thus, the delay in clearance of the cheques. Thereafter, on 10.3.2006 the assesse filed a letter giving details of the parties from whom advances were received. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the address and PAN of parties from whom amounts were received were not furnished. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the genuineness of these transactions and made addition of ₹ 36.77 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition of ₹ 36.77 Lakhs was reduced to 36.26 Lakhs. However, except the above, the Tribunal did not disturb the order of the CIT(A). 6 The Tribunal partially dismissed the appeal after rendering a finding of a fact that the appellant-assessee had not given details of cheque under which the amount was received by it from these Bhiwandi parties. Further , it finds there was no documentary evidence to support the claim of the assessee that this amount was received as an advance for supply of goods. There is no correspondence between the assessee and these parties regarding the amount received, repayment offered by the assessee and the alleged refusal of these parties to accept the refunds. On the above facts, the Tribunal notes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee authorities have on finding of fact come to conclusion that so called advances received from the parties at Bhiwandi for supply of yarn is not acceptable. This is particularly in view of the facts as indicated hereinabove while recording its findings the Tribunal particularly found that the return of money was made not to the creditors concerned but to the sister concerns of the Appellant and thereafter the amounts were also withdrawn from the partners and family members of the sister concern. Remand report indicating that the letter similar or identical in nature by all the parties who responded is that reason is similar i.e. the amounts were received for purchase of yarn as an Advance. Thereafter, yarn was not supplied and consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
