COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANJAY KUMAR JAIN

ITA-85-2010 ( COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs SANJAY KUMAR JAIN) 07-07-2015 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Appellant Bhopal (M. P.) versus Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain Prop. Respondent M/s Dhawal Jewellers. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta ................................................................................................. ...................... Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant. ................................................................................................. ...................... J U D G M E N T (7/07/15) This is revenue’s appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act calling in question the concurrent orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of granting certain benefit to the assessee. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of jewellery trading and pawning. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 (1) was carried out in the assessee’s premises on 13/06/02, cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- was seized from the business premises of assessee and gold jewellery weighing 9123.610 grams was also seized from the business premises. That apart, jewellery weighing 3161.940 grams was also found in the residence of assessee. Accordingly, notice under Section 158 B C was also issued for the block period 1/04/96 to 13/06/02 and the assessment order whereby the undisclosed income was computed at Rs. 35,70,440/- and the income department. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order dated 23/10/06 out of the income assessed at Rs. 35,70,440/-, the same was reduced by deleting certain entries. On a further appeal being filed as further deduction was given, this appeal has been filed by the revenue and during the course of hearing, the only question canvassed by learned counsel for the revenue was that in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,70,442/- rightly made by the Assessing Officer, applying the gross profit rate of 35 % , the appellate authorities have committed an error. 4. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the findings recorded by the learned Assessing Officer in the order of assessment and tried to indicate that the Assessing Officer having assessed the gross profit based on proper appreciation of the facts and the legal principle applicable, the authorities concerned have committed an error in interfering with the matter. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that both the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) have found that the Assessing Officer has not maintained stock register for silver and gold ornaments and it was found that based on appreciation of the circumstances, the order of the assessing authority cannot be sustained. In the order passed, the Commissioner (appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal have given cogent reasons in interfering with the matter. 6. We have considered the reasons given by both the authorities in the elaborate order and we find that it is based on due appreciation of the facts of the case and the discretion exercised cannot be termed as perverse or illegal to such an extent that any question of law substantive in nature arises for consideration in the appeal. 7. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (Sushil Kumar Gupta) Judge Judge vy