2008 (7) TMI 848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Paper Concern, Calcutta, disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 8,76,600 on the ground that the representative of the assessee one Mr. K. R. Pradeep who appeared, before the Assessing Officer on February 28, 1997, did not produce any evidence and that K. R. Pradeep in writing admitted that he is not in a position to produce any evidence in support of the claim for purchasing paper from Shri Krishna Paper Concern. Accordingly, the same was disallowed. Aggrieved, by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not only in regard to the disallowance of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in a sum of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rse finding. (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the goods were received by the assessee and the same was used in the business remained undisputed when it was the specific case of the Revenue that such a transaction did not take place and the assessee had not produced any proof to establish the transaction and consequently recorded a perverse finding." Though two substantial questions of law are framed by the Revenue at the time of hearing, we have noticed that the questions of law framed by the Revenue has to be reframed. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have no objection to reframe the questions of law. Accordingly, we have framed as here under : " (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment year 1994-95 for purchase of papers from the same concern, we could have appreciated the order passed by the Tribunal. But without assigning any reason just because relief is granted to the assessee for the previous assessment year, the same cannot be acceptable to us. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has produced relevant records before the appellate authority to show that it has really purchased the papers from Shri Krishna Paper Concern. But this statement is contrary to the order of assessment wherein it is mentioned that the representative of the assessee in writing has submitted that he has no evidence to show that the paper is purchased by the assessee from Shri Krishna Paper Concern, Calcutta. ....