TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the order dated 16th November 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Ahmedabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 1213/Ahd/2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. [2] The appellant - Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court: "(A) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 108.97 Crores made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act? (B) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,69,58,528/- made on account of non-genuine purchase? (C) Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal. The Tribunal, by common judgement and order passed in the case of M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent - assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12. [8] So far as question No. 1 with regard to deleting addition of Rs. 108.97 Crores made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act is concerned, the Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount as the respondent - assessee received it on account of transaction of sales made on NSEL. The assesse company accounted the sales of Rs. 108.97 Crores in its books of account as income and therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleted by the Tribunal by arriving at a finding of fact that the respondent - assessee has received the said amount in the bank account which was utilized for purchase for making transaction in NSEL. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant, relying upon the observations made by the Assessing Officer in paras 8.2 to 8.6 in the assessment order referring to the statement of Shri Nilesh Patel recorded during the course of certain proceedings under Section 133 of the Act wherein it is stated that the transaction on NSEL's platform were only financial in nature and are not in the nature of actual sales and purchase transaction. It was, therefore, contended by learned advocate Mr. Sanghani that there was no actual sale and purchase tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of non-genuine purchases, the Tribunal again arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of the Special Audit Report, wherein it is pointed out that the respondent - assessee had shown purchase of Cotton Wash Oil (CWO) amounting to Rs. 59.70 Crores more than the sales shown by M/s. N. K. Proteins Limited. The Assessing Officer, however, ignored that explanation given by the assessee that the quantity and value of purchases of CWO is reconciled and there is no difference. The Tribunal observed that the transaction of 10,180 Metric Ton of CWO for Rs. 59.70 Crores was through actual delivery of goods and it was not a part of trading cycle effected by the respondent - assessee through NSEL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale was also proved having been duly recorded and recognized income in the books of account of the assessee and therefore, addition was rightly deleted by the Tribunal. [18] With regard to the question No. 3 of deleting addition of Rs. 10,04,170/- made on account of cash credit, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the said amount actually represented realization of sale proceeds which the learned advocate for the appellant would not dispute that the amount in question represented sale proceeds realized by the respondent - assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly deleted the said addition. [19] So far as question No. 4 is concerned arising out of the addition of Rs. 3,17,346/- which was disallowed by the Assessing Offic....