Income-tax---

----Reference---Additions to income---Purchase found to be bogus ---Assessee not producing evidence to prove that purchase was genuine---Addition of sum as income by Tribunal was justified---No question of law arose.

Held. dismissing the application for reference, that all the questions sought to be referred pertained to the issue whether the Income-tax Officer was right in holding that a particular alleged purchase was genuine. The assessee failed to adduce proof that it was genuine although it was given ample opportunity to do so. The addition of the sum was, therefore, justified and no question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, C.J.---By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking the following five questions to be stated under section 256(2) of the Act:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Kashmir Traders, Lucknow, was not a genuine party and that it never existed as a tenant and as such the purchase of scrap from this party was bogus, non-genuine and fake?

2. Whether, on the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deciding the issue one way or the other without considering the additional evidence which was brought on record as early as in the first appellate proceedings?

3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's approach to treat the purchases genuine vis-a-vis co-relation of purchases of scrap with reference to percentage of burning loss is misconceived and warranted inferential approach?

4. Whether there was evidence in support of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the purchase of scrap from Kashmir Traders was bogus?

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision of reversing the order of the Appellate, Assistant Commissioner sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,02,000 made by the Income-tax officer is vitiated by failure to consider the relevant facts and material and consideration of irrelevant facts and placing reliance on conjectures and surmises?"

All these questions pertain only to one aspect, namely, whether the Income-tax Officer was right in holding that Kashmir Traders, Hazratganj, Lucknow, from whom the assessee claimed to have purchased scrap worth Rs. 1.02,000 on the last day of the accounting year, was a genuine party or not. The Income-tax Officer held that it is a non-existing party and, accordingly, added the said amount to the assessee's income. In appeal, the assessee sought to adduce additional evidence which was not allowed by the appellate authorities but the appellate authority allowed the assessee's appeal on a different ground. On further appeal by the Department to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the refusal of the appellate authority to receive additional evidence in appeal was justified in the circumstances. It, however, disagreed with the approach and reasoning of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on which he had allowed the assessee's appeal and, accordingly, allowed the appeal whereupon the assessee applied for a reference under section 256(1) which was refused.

A reading of the Income-tax Officer's order shows that ample opportunity was given to the assessee to prove the existence of the said Kashmir Traders, Hazratganj, Lucknow. The report of the Income-tax Officer, Lucknow, shows that no such party ever existed. The assessee was confronted with the said report, but he failed to adduce any material to contradict it.

Accordingly, we hold that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal which can be referred under section 2.6(2) of the Income Tax Act. The application is dismissed.

M.BA./1571/TApplication dismissed.