COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KISHORE APPARELS

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition of ` 90,00,105/- on account of unverifiable purchases under Section 69 of Act, 1961 and addition of ` 90,32,014/- on account of unexplained expenses under Section 68 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer.

Ms. Bansal pointed out that the assessee did not even file the PAN detail and complete address of the parties. She submitted that the onus lay on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the parties from whom purchases had been made and on whom expenditure had been incurred.

However, upon a perusal of the paper book, we find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short “CIT(A)”] and Tribunal have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the assessee had purchased raw material and also got the job work done from the same parties in both earlier and subsequent assessment years. The Assessing Officer in the subsequent Assessment Year of 2004-05 has accepted all these parties and transactions as genuine. Moreover, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal have found that payments had been made to these parties through banking channels and tax had been deducted at source on the payments made towards job work charges.

Accordingly, in our opinion, the view expressed by the Tribunal is both fair and reasonable. Moreover, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed in limine.