9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account of the assessee lent credence to the stand taken by the assessee – C(A) deleted both the additions – ITAT upheld the order of C(A) – held that - There is no question of any perversity in the findings of fact. There is, in our opinion, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, which has arisen for our consideration – revenue appeal dismissed. - 428 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2008 - BADAR DURREZ AHMED and RAJIV SHAKDHER JJ. R. D. Jolly for the appellant. Ms. Bhakti Pasrija for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAJIV SHAKDHER J. - This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Revenue has preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rselves the orders of the authorities below. After doing so, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment deserves to be sustained for the reasons given hereinafter. But before we delineate the reasons for our conclusion, the following facts are required to be noted: 4. The assessee had filed a return under section 115JA of the Act on November 28, 1997, declaring an income of Rs. 36,74,512. The Assessing Officer issued notices to the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act. The return of the assessee was processed under section 143(3) of the Act. Consequent thereto, the assessee participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer through his authorized representative. The Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation), Kanpur. The report of the DDI (Investigation) Kanpur was accompanied by a copy of the statement of one Shri Deepak Chauhan, managing director of Deepak Glycerides Process India (P.) Ltd., wherein he denied having supplied any goods to the assessee except those mentioned in Bill Nos. 239 dated July 3, 1996, and 242, dated July 22, 1996. Shri Deepak Chauhan claimed to have supplied machinery to other parties against the bill numbers referred to herein above. Based on this, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the aforesaid items on which 100 per cent. depreciation has been claimed by the assessee were not supplied by Shri Deepak Chauhan. For this purpose, the Assessing Officer relied heavily on the statement of Shri De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) examined the evidence produced by the assessee in detail after which he came to a categorical conclusion that the statement of Shri Deepak Chauhan, managing director of Deepak Glycerides Process India (P.) Ltd. was not credible. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) categorically noted that the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the supplier of the said items on which depreciation had been claimed, i.e., Shri Deepak Chauhan, managing director of Deepak Glycerides Process India (P.) Ltd. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the statements of Shri Deepak Chauhan, managing director of Deepak Glycerides Process India (P.) Ltd. were unreliable, and on the other hand, the evidence produced by the assessee in the form of relevant invoices, correspondence with the supplier as well as sales tax declaration form given by the said supplier, and also, the fact that transactions were duly reflected in the books of account of the assessee lent credence to the stand taken by the assessee. Based on the aforesaid, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted both the additions in the sum of Rs. 22,67,980 towards denial of depreciation claimed by the assessee as well as a sum of Rs. 39,46,250 towards unexpla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to have supplied were actually supplied to the assessee under Bill No. 243 which has been duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee; (iv) the payments with respect to eight bills referred to hereinabove which added upto, a sum of Rs. 22,67,980 and against which 100 per cent. depreciation had been claimed were paid by way of account payee cheques/drafts which were duly confirmed by the bankers of the assessee. This evidence was not put by the Assessing Officer to Shri Deepak Chauhan at any point in time. The Assessing Officer by solely relying upon the information received from the bankers of the suppliers, that the amount paid by the assessee-company had been withdrawn in cash questioned the genuineness of the purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
