9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the ITO. The ITO could not believe that an ordinary kabari could have had Nickel worth Rs. 24,000 for sale in a lot. So, he called upon the assessee to produce the supplier. The assessee, however, wrote back to the ITO on March 12, 1965, stating: " The purchase bill as well as the stamped receipt voucher in respect of 2,400 kgs. nickel purchase from Shri Chetan Kabaria has already been submitted to you in original. We can produce the consumption record of the factory in support of the purchase. Unfortunately since we do not have complete address of the person, we are unable to produce him before you. The purchase was made from kabari by chance and were tempted to purchase the same as the item was in short supply and was not avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % and 25% whereas in the year under consideration it came to about 26%. The addition of Rs. 24,000 raises the G. P. rate to 32.5% (wrongly mentioned as 25.5% in the order); (ii) The ratio of nickel consumption to castings done was broadly the same in comparison with that of earlier years; (iii) The alloy of which chucks are made, necessarily entails addition of a minimum quantity of nickel for imparting to the alloy the minimum toughness expected. (iv) Though the kabari was not produced, some kuccha vouchers were available. At best the purchase is not proved; it cannot be said that the purchase has been disproved by the department; (v) There is a withdrawal of Rs. 24,000 on the same day for payment against purchase. We are hesitant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable on record to show that the purchase price had either been fictitiously debited in the books or had been inflated. The failure of the assessee to produce the kabari only amounts to its failure to strictly prove the purchase. But from this circumstance alone it cannot be inferred that the entire claim or a part of it was untrue or fictitious. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the Commissioner, invited our attention to the decision of this court in Durga Timber Works v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 63. But a perusal of the above shows that the facts on which that case was decided were totally different. In that case, the assessee had not only surrendered an amount in respect of which enquiries were initiated but he also admitted that they represente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
