1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2614 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7. ...Appellant. Vs. M/s.Suvidha Fashion P.Ltd. ...Respondent. ..... Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.B.V. Jhaveri with Ms.Priti Shukla for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 12th January, 2010. P.C.: Basically the question which arises in this appeal against the judgment of the ITAT, is whether the Tribunal was justified in making a deletion of an addition of Rs.11,55,730/- on account of gross profit on sale against unexplained purchases of Rs.50,07,494/-. The assessee, the Tribunal observed, submitted statements before the Bank in which the figures varied with what was submitted to the Assessing Officer. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished a comparative statement of the figures which were submitted to the Bank and the figures based on its books in which the variance in purchases over the year in question was Rs.1,87,673. The Tribunal noted that there was a letter from the Bank that the statement furnished by the assessee had been verified with the records maintained by the assessee and a sample check had been carried out. Upon verification, it was found that correct figures of sales for almost all months except April and May 2001 had been furnished. The 2 Tribunal held that there was no reason why the other part dealing with the figures for purchases should be ignored. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessee that the figures for the entire duration of the year should be considered and that the revenue was not justified in taking the difference only for the months between April and July 2001. Since there was both an excess and a deficit in the figures of purchases furnished to the Bank over various months, both were taken into account on the ground that if only the excess was to be reckoned, that would result into a distortion. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has taken the difference in purchase figures for the entire year as unexplained purchases and has come to the conclusion that an addition of only Rs. 1,87,673 was justified as opposed to the figure of Rs.50,07,494/- which was added by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has also held that there was no evidence that any extra sales were done by the Assessee over and above what was recorded in its books. Hence, the addition of Rs. 11,55,713/- applying the gross profit rate of 23.08 per cent on Rs. 50,07,494/- was held to be not justified. The finding which has been arrived at by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact which does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)