2007 (2) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....obtained by the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue alleged that when even the proof of the identity of the parties to whom payments were made was not discharged by the assessee, the order of the Tribunal, conferring the benefit of rule 6DD on the assessee, is unsustainable. 3. These appeals relate to the assessment year 2001-02. 4. It is seen, that in respect of the assessment year 2001-02, the assessment was completed, holding that there was undervaluation of the closing stock as well as unexplained money utilised for payment to shandy persons. The assessee challenged the order of assessment before the first appellate authority, who, on appreciation of evidence, found that there was no case for enhancing the value of the closing sto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Commissioner held that the entire payments were made in rule 6DD(f), (g), (k) and (l). Thus, applying the law laid down by this court in CIT v. Chrome Leather Company P. Ltd. reported in [1999] 235 ITR 708, the Commissioner granted the relief in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue went on appeal and the assessee filed a cross appeal, in respect of the disallowance. 5. The Tribunal considered the claim of the Revenue as regards the deletion of the addition, on account of closing stock. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had given a factual finding, taking into account the materials, linking the details on the closing stock and there was no violation of rule 46A, as the data was emanating from regular books of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enue is in appeal in respect of the order held against it and the assessee' s appeal remitted by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that in the absence of any details to justify the deletion on undervaluation, the Tribunal ought to have upheld the order of the assessing authority. He also submits that the Commissioner of Income-tax considered the case only on the basis of additional evidence produced by the assessee that there was a large quantity of wet blue and in the absence of reconciliation, the Tribunal ought not to have considered this issue. 8. We do not find any justification to accept the said plea of the Revenue. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal noted that a large quantity of sale of wet....