PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IT JAIPUR-2 vs. SHRI AMIT SINGHAL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 66 / 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Shri Amit Singhal, 1740, Chela House, Jat Ke Kuwe Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur PAN: ASBPS 0351 H. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 123 / 2017 Shri Amit Singhal, 1740, Chela House, Jat Ka Kuwe Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), NCRB, Statute Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur & Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 30/05/2017 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant-department as well assessee have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 2. Counsel for the appellant in appeal No.66/2017 has framed

(2 of 3) [ITA-66/2017]

following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT is perverse in so far as it has failed to appreciate the facts of the case correctly? (ii) Whether

the

facts

and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in restricting the addition to Rs.7,63,077/- as against Rs.80,51,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases u/s 69C?” 2.1 Counsel for the appellant in appeal No.123/2017 has framed following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether

the

facts

and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in not considering the case of the petitioner as technical & venial in the nature? (ii) Whether assessing officer without conducting proper inquiry and without confronting both the parties can made addition into total income of petitioner? (iii) Whether making of gross profit addition @ 7.5% on total alleged purchased without assigning any specific reason and without applying any scientific method thereof is justified in the facts & circumstances of the case? (iv) Whether without doubting the payment made to seller and doing addition in Gross Profit is justified? (v) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining Gross Profit @ 7.5% as against 1.25% declared by appellant?” 3. However, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Aditya Gems in DB Income Tax Appeal No.234/2008, decided on 02.11.2016 wherein this court has observed as under:

(3 of 3) [ITA-66/2017]

“3. Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 4. We remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments. The issues are answered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 4. In that view of the matter, counsel for the parties agree that these appeals be remanded back to the Assessing Officer. 5. Therefore, both the appeals are remitted back to the Assessing Officer. The parties will adduce evidence including cross examination and after appreciating the same and taking into consideration the judgment referred to above the Assessing Officer will decide the matter afresh. 6. The appeals stands disposed of. 7. A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/32-33