m. st LSI COURT OF CHHATTISeAKH 'ble Shri Justice I.tt. Quddusi'c ble Shri Justic®N. K. Agarwal. ftevenue RESPONDENT nssesses [NCOME TAX APPEAL N0. 05 OF lincome Tdx ADpeal U/5 260-.4 of The Income Tax Act. 1961] Income Tax Officer, Jaqdalpur Vs ^ajkumar Jain Prop. Modi 61ass & 'raders. Old AAai'ket, Jagdalpur 5hri Raieey 5hrivastaya with 5hrj Advocates for the appeliant., ORAL ORDER ^^s-.=-»-a ^s- ^•y AA i^ni i ^ ^rsssBu on v? ,y£r.&.yi.Aj his income tax appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax .Act. 1961 C'for short 'the Act. 1960') aaainst the order dated 17.04.2006 passed by 1+ie Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Naqpur (tor short the Tribunal'i in I~fA No.282/Naq/2005 for the assessment year 2000-01. irief facts of the case are that 1+ie reSDondent-assessee is enqaqed in the business ot seil & purchase of cement and stee! in the name of M/s Modi &IQSS and Steel Traders. A search ond seizure was conducted In the premises of the respondent- assessee and durinq search, the Assessing. Officer (for short 'AO) has found unexDtajned investment Rs.2,22.900/- in the stock of cement: boqus purchase of steel worth Rs.25,05,816/- as the purchases alfeqedl'y mo.de from four concerns were not found in existence. The AO has also Droposed addition of Rs.6,58,666/- on -ttie qround That qross profit shown by the assessee is less and it should have been nround 35'7o. In the assessment proceedinqs i SEffi ^' e" 't.. A X The aforesaid amount was taxed jn •ftie hands.?'?f assessee as income from undlsclosed sources. ExDlanatiori offered by the assessee was relected as not convincing. 4. Beinq aggrieyed by the order of assessment passed by the AO, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Wppeal). The Commissioner deleted the additions made by the AO on the qround that there was no Justificatjon for makina such additions as the respondent had properly explained the unrecorded transaction and unaccounted ourchases. Revenue's appeal was also dismissed by Th? Tribunal vide impUQned order and the order of the CIT (Appeals) was upheld. O. The appeal was admirted on 30.08.2006 qh | ttie following substantial questions of taw:- i. Whether on facts and in the circumstonces of the case 1+ie Income Tax Appellafe Tribuna! was justified in upholdinq and confirminQ' the order of the Commissioner ot Income Tax (Appeals) and thereby deletina the addition amountinq to Rs.2,22,900/-, Rs.6,58.666/- towards unexplained investment and sum of Rs.25,05,816/- on account of boqus purchase of steel?" ii. Whether on the facts and in The circumstance of the case ttie Tribunal was rioht in givino the imDuaned finding at the mere assertion. of the respondents witiiout corroboration tro.m any extrinsic or intrinsic sourcesand drawinq inference withoutany basis?" 6. We have heard learned counsel for -the parties. We have gone throuqh the order passed by the Tribunnt and material wailable on 7. IT is setf'lsd law that the Tribunal is the final fact finding author'it/, as held jn Amarchoind Sobhachand Vs. CTT reported in (1997) 1 5CC 458, CTT Vs, Alqedran Finance Ltd. reoorted in (2007) 7 SCC 215, CIT Vs. Mukundray K Shah reported in (2007) 4 SCC 327. Normally. Rl Bs BS! KB B BB HS [^^ BSB 'K 1r .••.. the Courts should be restricted m interferinq wifh the findina of fact recorded by ths Trjbunal unless findinqs' are beyond the e'/idence ava'tabie on r'ecord and oeryerse. I" the instant case, 1+ie Tr'ibunal as wel! as CIT ((Appeals) has heid' that the assessee had discharqed its ent're onus and complied with it duties provinq that the purchases were qenuine and the qoods had besn .•"eceived which thereafter were sold. The books of accounts malntainsd by the assessee in nornial course of business had not )esn re.jected and the documentary evidences adduced by the assessee sho"' thot Durchase were made. The Dersons. who were confrontsd, had not d'enied that The bills were notjssued by them or fliat the qoods were not Transported throuah fhe concern. The paymsnts were made through bank drafts and no unrecarded sales or business outside the books were found. It has been further held that the .40 could not have disbelieYed the verswn o-f 1tie assessse reQarding bills issued by the transporter without confrontino him. ~!hus, we are of the oDinion that findina of fact recorded'by the CIT (,4ppea!s) and subsequently confirmed in an appeal by the Tribunal cannot be termed To be perverse or beyond the evidence available on 9. Since we have aiready held that the findina of the Tribunai cannot be terrned to be Derverse, we are of The opinion ThaT no substantiai guestion of law, as proposed by the appsllant, arises for adjudication of th 's oooeak 10. I" the result, the appeal beinq devo'd of substance deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- .M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K-Agrawai Judge SSsR^ E®i ^i ^S!: N Bi .EB KS K BaB ^E^ !••