COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SMT. URMILA CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), challenging order 18 -5 -2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in ITA No. 120/Asr/2004, in respect of the assessment year 1996 -97, claiming that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the assessee is trading in pig iron and cast iron scrap. Return of income was filed by the assessee on 31 -10 -1996 declaring total income at Rs. 64,460. On 30 -12 -1998, assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed at an income of Rs. 17,49,270. On 3 -8 -1999, income was further revised to Rs. 18,49,270, under Section 154 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order 3 -4 -2000 deleted addition of Rs. 10,000 made in the trading account, however, confirmed addition of Rs. 2,046 being not pressed by the assessee and also set aside the remaining order to be passed afresh. Thereafter, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to which the assessee filed reply. After reassessment, the assessing officer vide order 26 -3 -2002 (A -1) made two additions of Rs. 1,20,000 and Rs. 13,33,118 on account of unaccounted sales.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the appellant revenue and perusing various orders placed on record, we are of the considered view that the aforementioned findings recorded by the Tribunal are unassailable. The Tribunal has categorically held that there was no question of making addition on account of unexplained investment because it could not have concluded that the assessee had claimed credit of the same entry twice. In the process of recording the finding the Tribunal has gone into various entries of accounts and the findings are based on the evidence available on record. Therefore, on the first issue of deleting the addition made by the assessing officer for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000, no occasion is provided to interfere in the findings of fact. Moreover, the Tribunal has recorded that the assessing officer was not able to controvert the factual position. Likewise, on the second issue the Tribunal has concluded that the assessee respondent in his reply 20 -3 -2002 has categorically denied having received any payment against the sales made to the parties like M/s Jagannath Processors and Suppliers, Sundernagar and the other firms. The assessee respondent had also requested the assessing officer to summon those parties for recording their statements in that regard which was not done. The assessing officer could not bring on record any material showing that the assessee respondent had effected any sale or purchase outside the books of accounts. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 13,33,118 made by the assessing officer has been rightly deleted. Even these are pure findings of fact and would not give rise to any substantial questions of law as per the requirement of Section 260A(1) of the Act.