2013 (1) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Padma Diwakar For the Respondent Rep. by : Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Adv with Aasifa Khan JUDGEMENT 1 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 30.04.2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 2001-02. 2. The following question of law has b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. Being aggrieved an appeal was filed by the respondent-assessee with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)'). By an order dated 19.08.2004, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer interalia to the extent Rs.1.33 crores disallowed as bogus purchases. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2004 of the CIT(A), the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In view of the above, by order dated 30.04.2010 the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.1.33 crores by holding that the purchases were not bogus. 6. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that the Tribunal could not have relied only upon the stock statement i.e. the reconciliation statement to conclude that the purchases were genuine. Therefore, he subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were infact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have disallowed the deduction of Rs.1.33 cror....