TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cross-appeals, I.T.A. No. 1425 of 1989 (by the Revenue), and I.T.A. No. 1332 of 1989 (by the assessee): "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the first appellate authority's order deleting the addition of Rs. 1,48,93,286 made on account of bogus purchases? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the first appellate authority's order in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,47,867 made in the trading account by invoking the provisions of section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,63,154 on the ground that there were bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,48,93,287 and addition of Rs. 35,47,867 in the trading account, apart from some other inadmissible items of expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who accepted the assessee's case in part and held that its books of account were fully verifiable, therefore, section 145 of the Act need not have been invoked. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also held that the basis of treating the purchases from seven scrap dealers as bogus, was wrong as the consumption stood fully proved and the existence of the parties could not be denied. He also upheld the basis of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the subject are in consonance with the construction of section 32(1) of the Act, it has been held that, "extra shift allowance has to be calculated on the basis of the number of days during which the concerned had actually worked double shift or triple shift and the said allowance is not required to be calculated on the basis of the number of days a particular item of machinery or plant had worked double shift or triple shift". Question No. (iii) thus, is not required to be answered by us. As regards question No. (i) Shri Patwalia, learned counsel for the Revenue, has vehemently argued that the findings of the Tribunal pertaining to deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,48,93,286 in the income of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of non-ferrous metal of Rs. 2.44 crores, the Assessing Officer had treated purchases worth Rs. 1.49 crores only as bogus and it was impossible to manufacture the goods shown to have been manufactured by it out of the remaining purchases if the Assessing Officer's conclusion is accepted, also found favour with the Tribunal. This in our view, is simply a finding of fact based upon appreciation of the material on record and, thus, hardly gives rise to any question of law. So far as question No. (ii) is concerned, the Tribunal took notice of the fact that the assessee's method of accounting stood approved by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench/in its case for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and the orders passed therein ....