Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur v. Connected With

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR 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 ----AppellantVersus 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 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 VYASHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALAOrder 09/05/2018 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondentthat issue involved in this case has already been adjudicated bythis Court in IT Appeal No.81/2007 decided on 09.01.2013reported in (2013) 354 ITR 238 (Raj.). We have perused theaforesaid judgment in which following adjudication was made bythe Co-ordinate bench of this Court in para No.10 to 14, whichreads as under:- “10. When the sales declared by the assesseehad been accepted by the sales-tax authorities and theAO failed to bring on record any cogent material toshow the quantum of sales out of books of accounts,his estimate more than one and half time the salesdeclared by the assessee could not have beenconsidered justified. On a reasonable estimate, theCIT(A) and the Tribunal have, in our opinion, notcommitted any error in taking the figure of sales atRs.26 lakhs and not beyond. 11.So far GP rate was concerned, the AO wasobviously in error in taking the case of Anil Marbles (P)Ltd. As a comparable one, while omitting to considerthe basic difference that the said company had workedfor whole of the year whereas the respondent-assessee had worked only for a period of about 9months during the year in question, as the commercialproduction of the assessee started only from the thirdweek of June, 1995, and the assessee had been in thefirst year of its functioning. 12. In the totality of circumstances, the CIT(A) couldnot have been faulted in applying the GP rate of 25 percent as against 20.6 per cent declared by the assesseebut while not approving the rate of 32.42 per cent asapplied by the AO. 13.The orders as passed by the CIT(A) and theTribunal do not appear suffering from any perversity orfrom application of any wrong principle. In our view,ultimately, the matter had been of putting areasonable estimate on the quantum of sales and onthe GP rate while recording the findings on facts. Whenthe authorities have recorded such findings withcogent reasons and on relevant considerations, we findno reason to interfere. 14.Accordingly and in view of the above, the answerto the question formulated in the present case in theaffirmative i.e., against the Revenue and in favour ofthe assessee.” While following aforesaid judgment, all these income taxappeals are hereby dismissed. (RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J. Ishan(62-67)