High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench
Malpani House Of Stones vs. CIT
Sections 260A
Asst. Year 1987-88
Y.R. Meena & K.C. Sharma, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 40 & 42 of 2003
2nd April, 2003
Counsel Appeared
Sanjay Jhanwar, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. In this appeal, following revised questions are submitted stating that following substantial questions of law involved :
“Whether it is correct to reject the books of accounts under s. 145 of the Act and estimate the sales when the parties to whom sales were made were registered sales-tax dealers, who had issued sales-tax declaration form (Form No. 17) meaning thereby they exported the goods and when full address was available on invoices, the transactions stand proved and it is for the Department to prove by cogent evidence that the sales were not genuine and on that basis sustain the addition of Rs. 64,668 to the trading results of the assessee ?”
“Whether amount of Rs. 1,55,000 which was received as advance against sales and against which the sales were subsequently made and accepted by the Department in the next year be regarded as unexplained under s. 68 of the Act, 1961, particularly when the assessee discharged his burden by producing sufficient substantive evidences which the Revenue did not challenge ?”
“Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal was justified in making the disallowance of brokerage of Rs. 6,300 alleging that the same have been paid for procuring the alleged sales ?”
Admittedly, the provision to s. 145 of the IT Act, 1961, is attracted. On the facts and material produced before the AO, the additions are made on account of sales, purchases and brokerages. Whether the sales, purchases and brokerages were genuine or not is basically a question of fact. In our view, finding on fact is not perverse. Considering the concurrent finding, no case is made out for interference.
The appeal stands dismissed.
[Citation : 264 ITR 764]
