2015 (5) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r by the Revenue, being Income Tax Appeal No. 5110/Mum/2010 and the cross-objection of the assessee in the appeal of the Revenue. The assessment year is 2007-08. 2. Mr. Pinto appearing for the Revenue would submit that the present appeal raises substantial question of law. He submits that the substantial question of law is because the Tribunal was not right in accepting the estimation of income without any substantial basis. The Tribunal rendered an inconsistent and contradictory finding, inasmuch as it rejected the books of account. They were held to be not reliable and equally the purchases were held as not supported by proper evidence. Once such was the conclusion reached and on facts, the Tribunal should not have confirmed the estimati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed as cash credit. Then, another set of transactions of Rs. 30,00,000 came to be investigated and as their creditworthiness was not proved, that was treated as income. With regard to the gross purchases made to the tune of Rs. 2,87,57,709 from three parties, the Assessing Officer found that even these could not be termed as genuine and bona fide. If the documents are scrutinised, they would reveal that the dates, on which the stamp papers were purchased, are subsequent to that of the sub-contracts. In these circumstances, he disallowed the purchases to the tune of Rs. 2,87,57,709. Then some payments made to firms were scrutinised and the Assessing Officer held that these payments were created only to reduce the taxable profit and these paym....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that there is no substance in the complaint of the assessee about the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with regard to the purchases, loans and the sub-contracts. The exercise undertaken by both of them was upheld. The assessee's grievance that the estimation by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have been at best at 6.5 per cent. was rejected and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) estimation came to be maintained. That is how the assessee's appeal was dealt with and dismissed. In paragraphs 5.13 and 5.14 of the order under challenge, there are reasons assigned as to why the Tribunal does not accept the case of the Revenue either. In these circumstances and by....