Delhi H.C : Assessee claimed that the alleged suppressed transactions were direct sales to customers by the dealer and it only received commissions.

High Court Of Delhi

Hindustan Refrigeration Stores vs. CIT

Section 260A

Arijit Payasat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.

IT Appeal No. 68 of 2001

24th July, 2001

Counsel Appeared

Shahzad Khan, for the Assessee : Sanjeev Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

Heard.

2. This is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. The questions which have been proposed for adjudication relate to the findings of the Tribunal regarding alleged suppression of transactions. Assessee claimed that the alleged suppressed transactions were direct sales to customers by the dealer and it only received commissions. This plea was rejected by the AO.

3. We find that AO referred to certain books of accounts seized and the report received from the supplier i.e. Kirloskar Brothers Limited (in short ‘KBL’). It was noticed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)’] that there was no evidence regarding the arrangement of direct sales as claimed by the appellant. On the contrary it was noticed by the said authority that the stand of the assessee varied from time to time and different stands were taken at different points of time. He referred to certificate given by KBL and certain correspondences to conclude that the AO’s view regarding suppression of transactions was in order. In appeal the Tribunal noted and analysed the factual aspects and upheld the conclusion of CIT(A). It referred to the running accounts of the appellant noticing as to how the plea regarding direct purchase by some persons was not acceptable. The conclusions of the Tribunal are essentially factual not giving rise to any question of law. Appeal is, therefore, not maintainable and is not entertained. Dismissed.

[Citation : 256 ITR 700]

Malcare WordPress Security