Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 153 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Janta Sweet Home Pvt. Ltd., Nai Sarak, Jodhpur (Rajasthan.) ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 150 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Janta Sweet Home Pvt. Ltd., Nai Sarak, Jodhpur (Rajasthan.) Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 151 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Janta Sweet Home Pvt. Ltd., Nai Sarak, Jodhpur (Rajasthan.) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 152 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Janta Sweet Home Pvt. Ltd., Nai Sarak, Jodhpur (Rajasthan.) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 155 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Janta Sweet Home Pvt. Ltd., Nai Sarak, Jodhpur (Rajasthan.) ----Respondent
(2 of 3) [ITA-153/2013]
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 156 / 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Janta Sweet Home Pvt. Ltd., Nai Sarak, Jodhpur (Rajasthan.) ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA Order 09/05/2018 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that issue involved in this case has already been adjudicated by this Court in IT Appeal No.81/2007 decided on 09.01.2013 reported in (2013) 354 ITR 238 (Raj.). We have perused the aforesaid judgment in which following adjudication was made by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in para No.10 to 14, which reads as under:- “10. When the sales declared by the assessee had been accepted by the sales-tax authorities and the AO failed to bring on record any cogent material to show the quantum of sales out of books of accounts, his estimate more than one and half time the sales declared by the assessee could not have been considered justified. On a reasonable estimate, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have, in our opinion, not committed any error in taking the figure of sales at Rs.26 lakhs and not beyond.
(3 of 3) [ITA-153/2013]
So far GP rate was concerned, the AO was obviously in error in taking the case of Anil Marbles (P) Ltd. As a comparable one, while omitting to consider the basic difference that the said company had worked for whole of the year whereas the respondent- assessee had worked only for a period of about 9 months during the year in question, as the commercial production of the assessee started only from the third week of June, 1995, and the assessee had been in the first year of its functioning. 12. In the totality of circumstances, the CIT(A) could not have been faulted in applying the GP rate of 25 per cent as against 20.6 per cent declared by the assessee but while not approving the rate of 32.42 per cent as applied by the AO. 13. The orders as passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal do not appear suffering from any perversity or from application of any wrong principle. In our view, ultimately, the matter had been of putting a reasonable estimate on the quantum of sales and on the GP rate while recording the findings on facts. When the authorities have recorded such findings with cogent reasons and on relevant considerations, we find no reason to interfere. 14. Accordingly and in view of the above, the answer to the question formulated in the present case in the affirmative i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” While following aforesaid judgment, all these income tax appeals are hereby dismissed. (RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J. Ishan(62-67) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)