COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CETNRAL-3 vs. BRIJWASI IMPEX P. LTD.

$-6, 7 & 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 406/2016 PR.CIT CENTRAL-3 Appellant Through; Mr. Rahul Chaudhary. Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Kishore Singh and Mr. Anup Kumar Kesari, Advocates. versus BRIJWASIIMPEX PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal and Mr. Ravi Pratap, Advocates. p WITH + ITA No. 407/2016 PR.CIT CENTRAL-3 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary. Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Kishore Singh and Mr. Anup Kumar Kesari, Advocates. versus BRIJWASI IMPEX PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal and Mr. Ravi Pratap, Advocates. AND + ITANo. 491/2016 PR.CIT CENTRAL-3 Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary. Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Raghvendra Kishore Singh and Mr. Anup Kumar Kesari, Advocates. ITA 406/2016, 407/2016 & 491/2016 Page 1 of5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

versus BRIJWASIIMPEX PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal and Mr. Ravi Pratap, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI ORDER % 01.08.2016 CM No. 25521/2016 (Exemption! in ITA 406/2016 CM No. 27292/2016 (Exemption) in ITA 491/2016 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 27293/2016 (Condonation of delay in re-filing) in ITA 491/2016 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application is allowed. ITA Nos. 406/2016. 407/2016 & 491/2016 4. These three appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 30'^ October, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA No. 2714/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2002- 03, ITA No. 362/Del/20Il for the AY 2004-05 and ITA No. 1305/Del/2011 for the AY 2006-07. 5. A common urged in ITA Nos. 406 and 407 of 2016 concerning AYs 2002-03 and 2004-05 is whether the ITAT erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer ('AO') was not justified in framing the assessment under ITA 406/2016, 407/2016 & 491/2016 Page 2 of 5

Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Ineome Tax Aet, 1961 since no ineriminating material qua the Assessee was found during the eourse of the seareh? 6. The above issue stands covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in CITv. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380ITR 573. 7. ITA No. 491 of 2016 is for AY 2006-07 which is the year of the search which took place at the premises of M/s Haryana Chains, a unit of the Assessee. A doeument (Annexure-17) seized during the seareh contained an entry which read as '9750.140' which was interpreted by the Assessing Offieer (AO) as representing the trading income of M/s Haryana Chains and added to the returned ineome of the Assessee. 8. The Commissioner of Ineome Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A'] disagreed with the AO and deleted the addition after agreeing with the Assessee that the above figure represented the total weight of the gold chains found at the time of the seareh. The valuation report prepared by the Department supported the case of the Assessee. The CIT(A) further noted that the Assessee had surrendered a part of the stoek of M/s Haryana Chains. The AO had reduced the said surrendered amount from the total addition made on the basis of the seized doeuments. Thus, the AO had aeeepted the faet that M/s Haryana Chains was a unit of the Assessee. The above faetual determination has been eoneurred with by the ITAT in the impugned order. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not persuaded that the order of the CIT(A), whieh has been eoneurred with by ITA 406/2016, 407/2016 & 491/2016 Page3 ofS

for consideration. 10. The other question sought to be urged for the AY 2006-07 by the Revenue concerns the deletion of Rs. 15,22,096/- made by the AO on account of valuation of silver items determined by the Department Valuation Officer ('DVO'). The fact was that the DVO had valued the silver utensils articles at Rs. 68,08,000/-, which was valued by the registered valuer of the of the Assessee at Rs. 52,85,904/-. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 52,85,904/- out of the above Rs. 68,08,000/- and added the remaining amount of Rs. 15,22,096/-. The Assessee questioned the above order of the CIT(A) essentially on the basis that the DVO had valued the silver utensils on the basis of its purity at 80%, whereas the declared purity was 60% purity. The ITAT pointed out that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) gave any reasons for preferring the valuation report of the DVO over that furnished by the Assessee. 11. There appears to be no basis for disagreeing the Assessee's assertion that the declared silver was only 60% pure. It cannot be said that the ITAT while accepting the above plea of the assessee has rendered a perverse finding. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 12. As regards the further point regarding deletion of the addition of Rs. 4 crores made by the AO towards unexplained cash deposit in the bank, the ITAT has found that the assessee had explained the deposit of the amount. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A) and concluded that the said addition should be deleted. Thus, being a purely fact of determination, again no ITA406/2016, 407/2016 &491/2016 Page4of5

question of law arises for consideration. 13. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. AUGUST 01, 2016 kk S.MURALIDHAR, J NA^I WAZIRI, J ITA 406/2016, 407/2016 & 491/2016 Page 5 of 5