- (1.) SHRI Mahendra Gargieya is representing the respondent. His name is shown in the cause list. No one appears for the respondent.
(2.) THIS Income Tax Appeal has been admitted on the substantial questions of law, as follows: - "1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the purchases to the tune of Rs.15,06,160/ - were genuine even when the purchase bills and whereabouts of the parties were not filed before the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is perverse in upholding the order of CIT(A) in admitting the fresh evidence without allowing proper opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 -
(3.) QUESTION No.1 is a question of fact, which does not require any adjudication and the decision of the Court. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, that the purchases to the tune of Rs.15,06,160/ - were genuine, are findings arrived at on the appreciation of the accounts and supporting documents, which do not call for any interference by the High Court. So far as question No.2 is concerned, we find that the Tribunal had given adequate reasons, for relying upon the fresh evidence, which was filed with regard to purchase bills and transportation receipt, which could not be traced during the assessment proceedings, and which were produced before the CIT(A) as additional evidence, under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal has held that the CIT(A) has concurrent jurisdiction, and had the power to make enquiries in the matter. It concurred with the views of the CIT(A), that the assessee had made the sales against the purchases made. The sales were not disputed. At the same time, the sources of purchases were also not disputed. The AO had not disputed the gross profit declared on the sales.;