Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Antiquariat (India) Pvt. Ltd., 64

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 130 / 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II, JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus M/S ANTIQUARIAT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 64-65, DASHERA KOTHI, AMER ROAD, JAIPUR ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGHJudgment 22/08/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the tribunal whereby the tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department. 2.This court while admitting the appeal on 04.09.2012 hasframed following substantial questions of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin confirming CIT(A)’s order in deleting thetrading addition of Rs.44336707/- made by theAssessing Officer though confirming the rejectionof books of accounts without appreciating thefact that the purchases amounting toRs.17047600/- were not verifiable?” 3.Now, the issue is covered by the decision of the Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.433/2009 decided on 02.11.2016. 3.1It is not in dispute that controversy involved in this case issquarely covered by the decision of this Court in CIT, Jaipur-II,Jaipur Vs. M/s Aditya Gems, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.234/2008, decided on 2.11.2016, wherein it has been held asunder: “Considering the law declared by the SupremeCourt in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave toAppeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLPand confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passedby the Gujarat High Court and other decisions ofthe High Court of Gujarat in the case of SanjayOilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. IndustriesLtd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound bythe principle of law pronounced in the aforesaidthree judgments. 4.We remit back the case to the AssessingOfficer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix.The authority will accept the law but thetransaction whether it is genuine or not will beverified by the Assessing Officer on the basis ofthe aforesaid three judgments.”Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix.The authority will accept the law but thetransaction whether it is genuine or not will beverified by the Assessing Officer on the basis ofthe aforesaid three judgments.” 4. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserved to be allowed the matter is remitted back to the A.O. The parties will be allowedto lead the evidence including the cross-examination. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Jyoti Item No.86