Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appellantbhopal (M. P v. Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain

ITA-85-2010 ( COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVs SANJAY KUMAR JAIN) 07-07-2015 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :JABALPURINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, AppellantBhopal (M. P.) versus Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain Prop. Respondent M/s Dhawal Jewellers. Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra MenonHon'ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta ................................................................................................. ...................... Shri Sanjay Lal for the appellant. ................................................................................................. ...................... J U D G M E N T(7/07/15) This is revenue�s appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act calling in question the concurrentorders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal andthe Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of grantingcertain benefit to the assessee. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of jewellerytrading and pawning. A search and seizure operationunder Section 132 (1) was carried out in the assessee�s premises on 13/06/02, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was seized from the business premises ofassessee and gold jewellery weighing 9123.610 gramswas also seized from the business premises. That apart,jewellery weighing 3161.940 grams was also found in theresidence of assessee. Accordingly, notice under Section158 B C was also issued for the block period 1/04/96 to13/06/02 and the assessment order whereby theundisclosed income was computed at Rs. 35,70,440/- andthe income department. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order dated23/10/06 out of the income assessed at Rs. 35,70,440/-,the same was reduced by deleting certain entries. On afurther appeal being filed as further deduction wasgiven, this appeal has been filed by the revenue andduring the course of hearing, the only questioncanvassed by learned counsel for the revenue was that indeleting the addition of Rs. 35,70,442/- rightly made bythe Assessing Officer, applying the gross profit rate of 35% , the appellate authorities have committed an error. 4. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant tookus through the findings recorded by the learnedAssessing Officer in the order of assessment and tried toindicate that the Assessing Officer having assessed thegross profit based on proper appreciation of the factsand the legal principle applicable, the authoritiesconcerned have committed an error in interfering with the matter. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and we findthat both the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals)have found that the Assessing Officer has not maintainedstock register for silver and gold ornaments and it wasfound that based on appreciation of the circumstances,the order of the assessing authority cannot be sustained.In the order passed, the Commissioner (appeals) and theAppellate Tribunal have given cogent reasons ininterfering with the matter. 6. We have considered the reasons given by both theauthorities in the elaborate order and we find that it isbased on due appreciation of the facts of the case andthe discretion exercised cannot be termed as perverse orillegal to such an extent that any question of lawsubstantive in nature arises for consideration in theappeal. 7. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (SushilKumar Gupta)Judge Judgevy Judge