Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii Jaipur v. M/S B.a. International, B-12, M.g.d. Market Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 367 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-ii Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 85 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 125 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 566 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Sahani with Mr. R.M. Sharma, Mr. Mahendra Gargeiya _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 24/07/2017 By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department and allowed the appeal ofthe assessee modifying the order of CIT(A). This court while admitting the matter has framed thefollowing questions of law:- “D.B. ITA No. 367/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin not taking cognizance of inquiries conductedby CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearlyindicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ITAT has acted illegally andperversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT wasjustified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69Cof the Act on account of bogus purchaseswithout appreciating that the claimed purchaseswere proved to be bogus solely on the basis thatsince export was there corresponding purchasesmust be there and not taking judicial notice ofthe fact that the persons managing the affairs ofthe firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in the trade of manufacturingof ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 85/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin not taking cognizance of inquiries conductedby CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearlyindicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ITAT has acted illegally andperversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT wasjustified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69Cof the Act on account of bogus purchaseswithout appreciating that the claimed purchaseswere proved to be bogus solely on the basis thatsince export was there corresponding purchasesmust be there and not taking judicial notice ofthe fact that the persons managing the affairs ofthe firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewelleryand Garments but in the trade of manufacturingof ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 90/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin not taking cognizance of inquiries conductedby CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearlyindicate that export sales were not genuine? “D.B. ITA No. 90/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin not taking cognizance of inquiries conductedby CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearlyindicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ITAT has acted illegally andperversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT wasjustified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69Cof the Act on account of bogus purchaseswithout appreciating that the claimed purchaseswere proved to be bogus solely on the basis thatsince export was there corresponding purchasesmust be there and not taking judicial notice ofthe fact that the persons managing the affairs ofthe firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewelleryand Garments but in the trade of manufacturingof ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 125/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin not taking cognizance of inquiries conductedby CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearlyindicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ITAT has acted illegally andperversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT wasjustified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69Cof the Act on account of bogus purchaseswithout appreciating that the claimed purchaseswere proved to be bogus solely on the basis thatsince export was there corresponding purchasesmust be there and not taking judicial notice ofthe fact that the persons managing the affairs ofthe firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewelleryand Garments but in the trade of manufacturingof ceramic waves? “D.B. ITA No. 566/2011 (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin not taking cognizance of inquiries conductedby CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearlyindicate that export sales were not genuine?case the ITAT has acted illegally and perverselyin not taking cognizance of inquiries conductedby CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearlyindicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ITAT has acted illegally andperversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT wasjustified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69Cof the Act on account of bogus purchaseswithout appreciating that the claimed purchaseswere proved to be bogus solely on the basis thatsince export was there corresponding purchasesmust be there and not taking judicial notice ofthe fact that the persons managing the affairs ofthe firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewelleryand Garments but in the trade of manufacturingof ceramic waves?”the case the ITAT has acted illegally andperversely in law and the Hon’ble ITAT wasjustified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69Cof the Act on account of bogus purchaseswithout appreciating that the claimed purchaseswere proved to be bogus solely on the basis thatsince export was there corresponding purchasesmust be there and not taking judicial notice ofthe fact that the persons managing the affairs ofthe firm are not in the trade of Gem & Jewelleryand Garments but in the trade of manufacturingof ceramic waves?” The order dated 15[th] February, 2017 passed by this Court reads as under:- “In view of amendment applications, question No. 2which has been referred by the Court is deleted asprayed for. All applications are allowed. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal isjust and proper. The question which has been raised have notbeen argued before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It will be open for the appropriate authority under relevantact to take action regarding question no.1, if it is permissible. Thiswill not be required to consider under Income Tax Act. The appeals stand dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/68-72