9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case, AO has accepted the Appellant's version regarding some of the supplies, which were backed by documentation like delivery challans. If delivery challans and other valid documentation were possible regarding some of the supplies, we fail to understand why the same was not possible regarding the supplies, which are now adjudged as bogus. The explanation for the meagre documentation inspired no confidence and bordered on frivolity. AO has also considered the stereotyped affidavits of the so-called suppliers and correctly rejected them. If the Appellant was indeed involved in making bogus purchases. This question, it appears, was posed even to the assessing officer who has dealt with the same in the assessment order. It is not for thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they give rise to no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law. 5. The assessing officer in this case, after a detailed analysis of the material on record, concluded that this was a case of bogus purchases. After rejecting the books of account offered, the assessing officer chose to add only 25% of the bogus purchases. The Commissioner did not revise this by resorting to Section 263 of the Income Act, 1961. 6. Instead, the Appellant assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appeals were dismissed, and the 25% addition was confirmed. The Appellant assessee once again appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). By the impugned order, the ITAT confirmed the finding about bogus purchases or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all and, therefore, the rejection of the assessee's books of account suffered from perversity. With his assistance, we evaluated the material on record even though the scope of an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act is restricted. Still, the more we got into such material, the more we were convinced how the concurrent findings on bogus purchases were justified, and we wondered why the assesses were let off with only a 10% addition in these matters. 10. An Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be entertained only if it involves a substantial question of law. Re-appreciation of evidence is not within the scope of such Appeals. Findings of fact, mainly when concurrently recorded by the assessing officer, Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants' vehicles and check the deliveries or the transportation. This kind of explanation is hard to accept and indicates the extent to which the Appellant is prepared to go to camouflage the bogus purchases. 14. This is not a case where proper documentation was in place, but the authorities held against the assesses only because the suppliers did not appear pursuant to the summons or the assessee could not produce delivery challans. These circumstances were correctly considered along with other material on record or frivolous defences. Only after a detailed evaluation of all such material cumulatively did the three authorities record concurrent findings of fact that the purchases were bogus. There is no perversity involved in such concurre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
