CIT vs. KRISHNA JAIN

s-29 * IN THE IIIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + REV. PET. 38212012 IN ITA 1780/2010 & C.M. APPL. r07r2- 1077412012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BI{AT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER o 29.Lt.2012 The Revenue argues that the order dismissing the appeal should be recalled especially in view of the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Geeta Devi Bindal,ITA No.12612009 and connected cases. It is urged that the Tribunal entirely based its conclusions in the present case on the Special Bench ruling in Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar and in an identical fact situation the Court (in Geeta Devi Bindal) remitted the matter for consideration on the facts and circumstances of each case. 2. Having regard to the averments made and the directions in Geeta Devi Bindal, this Court is of the opinion that the review has merit; it is accordingly allowed. ITA 1,780/2010 l. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.08.2008. It had challenged the Commissioner (A)'s ITA 1780/2009 Page 1 of3 versus KRISHNA JAIN ,h 2012:DHC:7926-DB

.- order deleting the amount added back on account of accommodation entries allegedly provided by M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar, the assessee had cross objected to the CIT (Appeals) in upholding the reassessment. Para 4 of the impugned order in this case records that counsel for both sides agreed that the decision of the Special Bench in M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar 0T) (SS) A. No.404lDell2003 decided on25.07.2008 would apply. The Tribunal also heard the submissions and quoted paras 166 of the decision in Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar; on that basis the revenue's appeal was dismissed. 2. ln Geeta Devi Bindal, too the question of genuineness of jewellery sales claimed by the assessee in circumstances identical to ttre present one to either IWs. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar or Bemco Jervellers was in issue. On being called upon to decide the correcbress of the ITAT orders, the Division Bench rn Geeta Devi Bindal held as follorvs: - "Since the Tribunal has not done that, we are setting aside the impugned orders and are remitting the matters to the Tribunal for considering this aspect of the matter so that the Tribunal can return a clear finding in respect of each of the matters as to whether the alleged transaction of sale of iewellery was genuine or not." 3. In view of the above decision, this Court is of the opinion that a similar approach had to be made. Having regard to the facts of this case the impugned order does not disclose even a discussion of the facts pertaining to the transaction involved in the present case of the assessee/ respondent. In view of this development the Court is of the opinion that the revenue's appeal is to succeed. The same is accordingly allorved. The ITA No.133l/DeU2009 are accordingly restored to the file of the Tribunal lvhich shall issue notice to the parties fixing the date for hearing. ITA 1780/2010 Page 2 of3 i-tr\ 2012:DHC:7926-DB

( @ 4. Consequently, all the miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. ITA No.1780/2010 is allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BIIAT, J It [\\* - R.V.EASWAR, J NOVEMBER29,2ol2 hs ITA 1780/2010 Page 3 of3 2012:DHC:7926-DB