TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not have been taxed in the hands of the director Shri Mahesh Toshniwal as was done by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ought to have, to that extent, modified the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 2. We are satisfied that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have clarified in view of its order that the addition of Rs. 4,37,048 has to be made in the hands of the appellant-company that the said addition is not taxable in the hands of its director Mahesh Toshniwal as was done by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?" 3. The aforereferred question arises in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s from such unknown parties are totally unvouched. Therefore, no deduction can be allowed to the assessee-company on account of the purchases of Rs. 4,37,048 from the abovementioned parties. Regarding the source of the alleged payment to unidentified parties, any evidence of such payments is not available. Though, the assessee has accepted that such payments have been made from unaccounted money but Shri Toshniwal, director of the assessee-company is not able to give any evidence that such unaccounted payments were made by him from his own funds. Therefore, as far as the claim of purchases from the above parties are concerned, the same are disallowable in the hands of the assessee-company as bogus purchases and added to the total income und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs. 4,37,048 in the case of the appellant is deleted. However, the Assessing Officer dealing with the case of Shri Mahesh Toshniwal is directed to include the said amount of Rs. 4,37,048 as his income for the period relevant to the assessment year 1991-92. Consequently, the appellant gets a relief of Rs, 4,37,048." 7. The Revenue was aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated March 20, 1995, and preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The contention of the Revenue before the Tribunal was that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,37,048, made on account of unexplained investment from the income of the company and directing the Assessing Officer to include t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the learned authorised representative that since the said amount of purchases has been added in the hands of Shri Mahesh Toshniwal, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee-company. It is a settled law that the tax has to be levied on the real person. Under these circumstances and keeping in view the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court as relied on by the learned Departmental representative in the case of CIT v. La Medica [2001] 250 ITR 575, we are of the view that the assessee-company has debited bogus purchases in its books of account which the assessee-company could not substantiate and, accordingly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,37,048, which is directed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the hands of the director of the company once it has been added to the income of the appellant-company. She was, therefore, not averse to the clarification being made by us to that extent. 12. We hold that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal having made the addition of Rs. 4,37,048 in the hands of the appellant-company, it ought to have ordered deletion of that amount from the income of Mahesh Toshniwal. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) must have been set aside by making this position very clear. We answer the question accordingly. 13. Consequent upon what we have said above, we clarify that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated March 20, 1995, stands set aside to the ext....