TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchases, when the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of burden of proof by producing cogent and relevant material and evidence on the record to show that the purchases were not bogus in light of the statement of Shri Rohit Panwala?" 2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Revenue. It was contended that impugned order of Tribunal dated 26.10.2007 is perverse in as much as the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact which are contrary to the findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals). At this stage, it was pointed out by the Court that the said issue is not even proposed as a question, the learned Counsel prayed for permission to reframe the question. Accordingly, the learned Counsel has been permitted to make submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... substantial question of law. 4. The Tribunal has recorded the following findings: "20. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record we find that a search operation was carried out on Shri Rohit Panwala and his associates and other proceedings were also taken against them wherein Shri Rohit Panwala stated that he used to provide accommodation/fake bills at the request of the parties. On the basis of this, the AO has treated the purchases made by the assessee from 3 parties which do not include Rohit Panwala for Rs.7,21,950/- as bogus. The assessee claimed that the payments to the parties were made by account payee cheques and against receipt of goods. We find that....