TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his appeal. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A ibid? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal in limine as in our opinion the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out within the meaning of section 260A ibid. 5. The issue relates to certain additions amounting to Rs. 89,49,075/- made by the A.O. in the course of assessment proceedings in the A.Y. 2005-06 on account of alleged bogus purchases made by assessee with certain persons. The CIT(A) as also Tribunal deleted the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttances of export sales. These documents have been placed at pages 1 to 77 and 83 to 115 of the paper book. Payments have been made by account payee cheques. Their confirmations were also filed. In the cases of M/s. Kartika Exports, M/s. Gems Hi Gems, M/s. RAS Gems Exports, M/s. Gaurave Exports, M/s. Shilp Exports, M/s. S.Gulab Chand & Co., M/s. Girish Diam, M/s. Veni Gems and M/s. Arun Jewellers, the assessee had also filed copies of their Income-tax return, computation, ledger account. In the case of Fine Jewellery Co., the assessee had filed their confirmations, and copies of ledger account besides purchase bills. Thus we find in one hand the assessee had furnished all the necessary information supported with documents to establish the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irst appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The ground is thus rejected." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) contended that firstly AO was right in adding Rs. 89,49,075/-. His second submission was that there was no factual basis for deletion of Rs. 89,49,075/- and in last, he contended that finding recorded by Tribunal on impugned deletion is perverse and hence finding of AO be restored, We do not agree to any of these submissions for more than one reason. 8. In the first place, what is involved in the case is a pure question of fact and not any question of law much less substantial question of law. Secondly, this Court cannot again in this appeal undertake the examination of factual issues nor can draw any factual....