Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur v. M/S Marine Minerals & Herbal Remedies (P) Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 118 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Marine Minerals & Herbal Remedies (P) LTD. 4. Ganga Vihar, Sardar Patal Marg, C. Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 119 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Marine Minerals & Herbal Remedies (P) LTD. 4. Ganga Vihar, Sardar Patal Marg, C. Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 120 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Marine Minerals & Herbal Remedies (P) LTD. 4. Ganga Vihar, Sardar Patal Marg, C. Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 121 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Marine Minerals & Herbal Remedies (P) LTD. 4. Ganga Vihar, Sardar Patal Marg, C. Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta with Mr. Sameer Sharma and Mr. Gaurav Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.L. Agarwal with Mr. S. L. Poddar _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment 19/09/2017 1. In all these appeals since identical questions of law and factsare involved, they are decided by this common judgment. 2.By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal haspartly allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed theappeal of the department. 3.This court while admitting the appeals framed the followingquestions of law:- 1. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.118/2014 “Whether the ITAT order is justified in law indeleting the entire trading addition of Rs. 10483898/-though not allowing the assessee’s ground with respectto the rejection of books of accounts?” 2. . D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.119/2014 “Whether the ITAT order is justified in law in deleting theentire trading addition of Rs. 51,97,639/- though not allowing theassessee’s ground with respect to the rejection of books ofaccounts?” 3. . D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.120/2014 “Whether the ITAT order is justified in law in deleting theentire trading addition of Rs. 73,39,883/- though not allowing theassessee’s ground with respect to the rejection of books ofaccounts?” 4. . D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.121/2014 “Whether the ITAT order is justified in law in deleting theentire trading addition of Rs. 63,32,819/- though not allowing theassessee’s ground with respect to the rejection of books ofaccounts?” 4. Facts of the case are that the assessee company M/s MarineMinerals and Herbal Remedies Pvt., Jaipur- is a sister concern of M/s.Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. and both are controlled by Shri Shiv ShankarGupta. The assessee company was incorporated on 04.05.1999 anddeals in trading of gems stones. The background of search action onthe Clarity Group was survey under Section-133A conducted in FY-2007-08 by the BCTT Wing of the Investigation Directorate of Jaipurwhich revealed that Clarity Gold Pvt Ltd. and its sister concerns M/s.Marine Minerals and Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur had obtainedbogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 13.59 crores from various entryproviders. After search (20.05.2009) the case of the assessee wascentralized with ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice underSection-153A to the assessee company on 23.09.2009. In responsethe return was filed on 31.01.2011, declaring income of Rs.1,20430/-. Assessment was completed at Rs. 62,07,090/- throughorder dated 23.08.2011 passed under Section-143(3) r.w.s.153A bythe ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. 5.We have heard Mr. Mehta counsel for the appellant and Mr. Guptacounsel for the respondents. 6. Taking into consideration the evidence on record ,theTribunal while considering the matter has totally deleted theamount of addition. In our considered opinion, taking into accountthe industry which is running the business, the addition which hasbeen made on the bases of GP which has been shown of theidentical industry whose case is also heard together. The GP rateof previous years reads as under:- Particulars 2004-052005-2006-07`2007-082008-092009-102010-1106Sales 48740868 4392318357742931` 7147271020284958134001970Gross 195312822693022476475166646210322621471120ProfitG. P. Rate4.01%5.17%4.29%`2.33%4.95%16.02%0 7. Taking into account the average GP rate which will be appliedin the present case will be 12 per cent. It is made clear that whereever the profit is more than 12 per cent, the same will not berefunded to the assessee but where it is less than 12 per cent, theincome will be assessed on the basis of 12 per cent GP. 08.In view of above, all the appeals stand allowed to theaforesaid extent. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B.M. G. /Gourav-65-68