2009 (10) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed a return of its income under section 139(1) of the Act as per the return dated November 29, 1996, disclosing a taxable income of Rs.17,06,295. 3. The assessee became wise and chose to file a revised return on February 9, 2007, under section 139(5) of the Act, reducing its taxable income to Rs. 2,49,927. 4. While processing this revised return, the Assessing Officer found that certain claims of the assessee such as receipts of a sum of Rs. 24,44,000 from M/s. Associated Edible Oil Ltd. and further amount of Rs. 24,15,000 from M/s. ACC Ltd. were not genuine receipts, in the sense, the assessee had not effected the sales of any product in respect of which the said two companies could have issued such receipts and which version was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he turn of the Revenue to go in appeal before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. The Tribunal, purporting to follow its earlier decision and also being of the view that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the said decision of the Tribunal, etc., obviously dismissed the appeal. 8. We have heard Sri M. V. Seshachala, learned standing counsel for the Revenue-appellant and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. 9. Though the appeal had been admitted to examine the following question of law : "Whether the Tribunal is right in arriving at a conclusion that the Department having accepted the bogus nature of purchases, expenses and depreciation also should accept the bogus sales even though ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submits that the Revenue is in a position to sustain the correctness of the assessment order independent of the outcome for the earlier assessment year and the development in the earlier assessment year cannot have any bearing on the tax liability of the assessee in the present case, etc. 12. While we notice that the two entries relating to the same sale transaction in favour of the two companies, referred to above, were not accepted by the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that the date of receipt of the payment was one relating to the subsequent assessment year, viz., the assessment year 1997-98, being the payment received during the accounting period relating to 1997-98, the same receipt cannot, obviously, be taken as receipts f....