Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 367 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-ii Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 85 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 125 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 566 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus

(2 of 5) [ITA-367/2011]

M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Sahani with Mr. R.M. Sharma, Mr. Mahendra Gargeiya _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 24/07/2017

By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and allowed the appeal of the assessee modifying the order of CIT(A). This court while admitting the matter has framed the following questions of law:- “D.B. ITA No. 367/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on the basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of the fact that the persons managing the affairs of the firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewellery

(3 of 5) [ITA-367/2011]

and Garments but in the trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 85/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on the basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of the fact that the persons managing the affairs of the firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in the trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 90/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on the basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of the fact that the persons managing the affairs of the firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in the trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 125/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine?

(4 of 5) [ITA-367/2011]

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on the basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of the fact that the persons managing the affairs of the firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in the trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 566/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on the basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of the fact that the persons managing the affairs of the firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in the trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves?” The order dated 15th February, 2017 passed by this Court reads as under:- “In view of amendment applications, question No. 2 which has been referred by the Court is deleted as prayed for. All applications are allowed. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. The question which has been raised have not been argued before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(5 of 5) [ITA-367/2011]

It will be open for the appropriate authority under relevant act to take action regarding question no.1, if it is permissible. This will not be required to consider under Income Tax Act. The appeals stand dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/68-72