Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 240 / 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II ,JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus SHRI ARUN KUMAR KOTHARI, PROP. M/S PYRAMID EXPORTS, C- 106, SAVITRI PATH, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. Prateek Kedawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 25/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the department. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 27.11.2013 framed following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the purchases made by the assessee were genuine and the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition u/s 69C and its proviso.” 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/s Sambhav Gems Ltd., D.B. Income Tax Appeal

(2 of 2) [ITA-240/2011] No.433/2009 decided on 2.11.2016 wherein it has been held as under:- “3. Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 4. We remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments.” 4. Counsel for the respondent has placed on record copy of order dt. 24.10.2011 whereby after remand the CIT(A) has already decided the appeal partly in favour of assessee which is not challenged by the department. The order is taken on record. 5. In that view of the matter, this appeal has now become academic. The issue is answered in favour of assessee. The appeal stands disposed of. (INDERJEET SINGH)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. Brijesh 166.