TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be substantial questions of law:- "(A) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the conclusion reached by the Assessing Officer as to the bogus purchase of M.S. Steel is not justified ? (B) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the transaction of purchase of M.S. Steel from Dhruv Steel was genuine business transaction against which the assessee had made payment to Dhruv Steel ?" 2. The assessment year is 2004-05 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year 2003-04. The assessee, a cooperative society, filed its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 declaring total income of Rs. 86,349/- pursuant to the notice issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it was established that Dhruv Steel had not supplied any item of M.S. Steel to the assessee. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why total transactions made by Dhruv Steel should not be treated as bogus. In respect thereto, the assessee submitted its detailed reply as recorded in paragraph 2.4 of the assessment order, explaining all facts with regard to supply of goods, use of steel in setting up the unit, recording of receipt of goods in the entries made in the manual register maintained at the factory gate as well as in the further register maintained by the Accounts Department. It was pointed out that the goods inward register already forms part of the material seized by the department. Copies of bills issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contrary they had confirmed the sales having been affected and that the assessee had established the identity and genuineness of the transactions made with M/s Dhruv Steel. In this factual background, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the transactions of purchase of steel from M/s. Dhruv Steel cannot be treated as non-genuine and depreciation cannot be denied as claimed in the return of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) further noted that the Assessing Officer had not controverted the identity of M/s. Dhruv Steel and that the said party was a dealer engaged in the business of trading of iron and steel and that it was a matter of fact that the assessee had purchased material from the said party. That when the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. The total purchase from Dhruv Steel during the F.Y. 2003-04 amounting to Rs. 464 lakh as against which the A.O. has considered Rs. 347 lakh as non-genuine. On perusal of the details submitted, it is seen that the appellant has made payment of the entire amount of Rs. 464 lakh out of which the A.O. has alleged coming back of amount of Rs. 274 lakh as deposit. However, he has failed to appreciate that the transaction between Dhruv Steel and Vimal Marketing and payment by the appellant to Dhruv Steel cannot be mixed up. The appellant has provided copies of bills of purchases. The appellant has also provided proof to show that the steel reached appellant's factory at Anjar by way of weigh bridge receipt. Thus, the appellant has shown that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in both the assessment years by disallowing the claim of depreciation on building and plant and machinery was unwarranted and accordingly the AO is directed to delete the said addition. The related ground of appeal is thus allowed." 4. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the significant facts which had been revealed during the proceedings, namely, that the proprietors of the concerns from whom M/s. Dhruv Steel, viz., the supplier of M.S. steel to the assessee, is....