TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Company to the assessee is also genuine ?" {D} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT [A] in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,37,41,680/= made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases from Amber Trading Company to that extent as bogus and nongenuine ?" {E} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,01,82,782/= made on account of disallowance of speculation loss relying on the decision of this Court in case of Pankaj Oil Mills v. CIT, 115 ITR 824 when the said decision was in favour of the revenue and the facts of the said case are identical to the facts of the assessee's case ?" {F} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the order of the CIT (A) in deleting addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unutilized Cenvat/Modvat credit of Rs. 33,25,541/= ?" {G} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Indo Nippon Chemicals Company Limited even after the amendment to the provisions of Section 145A by the F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain to the purchases made by the assessee from one M/s. Vishal Traders. Assessing Officer doubted such purchases and deleted entire amount of Rs. 2.25 Crores [rounded off] for such purchases. The Tribunal reduced the addition to 5% of the said amount. In case of this very assessee, under similar circumstances, we have rejected the Revenue's appeal making following observations : "Revenue has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad {"Tribunal" for short} dated 17th April 2013 raising following questions for our consideration : {A} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 5% of the total bogus purchases of Rs. 61,67,077/= made from M/s. Vishal Traders ?" {B} "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that provisions of Section 40A (3) of the Act are not attracted to the cash purchases of Rs. 61,67,077/= claimed to have been made from other parties ?" Issue pertains to addition of Rs. 61.67 lakhs [rounded off] made by the Assessing Officer in case of the respondent assessee for the A.Y 200708. The respondent assessee is in the business of manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate of the year under consideration were better than the previous year. The stock register was properly maintained and the purchases in question were reflected in such stock register and finding that there were internal contradictions in the statements made by the representative of M/s. Vishal Traders and said Shri Madanlal Chandak, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 5% of the amount in question. Revenue has therefore preferred this appeal and also filed Tax Appeal No. 842 of 2013 raising this question. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the entire issue is based on materials on record. The Tribunal did not accept the Revenue's stand that the purchases were bogus, in the sense that no material was received. Perusing the order of the Tribunal and the material discussed at length by the CIT [A] in his order, this issue gets further support. If we were to therefore not depart from the Tribunal's view that the material was actually received for which payments were made, only question would be did the Tribunal err in adding 5% of the purchases and not 25% as was vehemently urged before us by the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rading Company itself. Learned counsel for the assessee would however correctly point out that CIT [A] as well as the Tribunal both noted that in the case of the assessment of M/s. Amber Trading Company itself, such purchases were accepted and found genuine. That being the situation, the Tribunal in our opinion correctly did not accept the Revenue's appeal, making following observations : "3.9 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that the disallowance in respect of purchases from Amber Trading Company was made by the Assessing Officer on this basis that out of total purchases claimed by the assessee from Amber Trading Company of Rs. 4123.10 lacs, total unregistered dealers [URD] purchases made by Amber Trading Company in assessment year 200809 is Rs. 2119.45 lacs. The A.O was of the view that the URD purchases of Amber Trading Company is bogus and as a consequence, the purchases of the assessee company from Amber Trading Company is also to be held as bogus to the extent of URD purchases of Amber Trading Company. Hence, it is seen that the disallowance in the present case was made o....