Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Hazari Ram & Party (Sadulsahar-Group), Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 68 / 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/S Hazari Ram & Party (Sadulsahar-Group), Jaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur._____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHURJudgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri J.27/01/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee but partly allowedthe appeal of the department. 2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 04.09.2008 hasframed the following substantial questions of law: “(i)Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case the ITAT andCIT(A) were justified in law in restrictingthe additions without assigning any reasonswhen the invoking of the provisions ofSection 145 of the Act has been upheld? (ii)Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the ITAT has notacted perversely in reducing and restrictingthe trading additions without assigning anyreasons and making estimation overestimation?” 3.The facts of the case are that the assessee is a AOP (withindeterminate shares) engaged in business of lifting liquorcontract in the Sadul sahar area (Shri Ganganagar Distt.) Returndeclaring income of Rs.34,97,280/- was filed in the status of AOPon 31.10.2000 which was accompanied by audit report u/s 44ABof the Income Tax Act along with Trading Account, Profit and LossAccount and Balance Sheet. The return was processed u/s.143(1),(a) on 06.07.2001. The case was selected for scrutiny andnotice u/s. 143(2) was issued and complied with. 4.Counsel for the appellant has contended that the issue iscovered by the decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. RamSingh 363 ITR 417 (Rajasthan). 5.Thought the respondent has been served but nobody has putin appearance on its behalf. Therefore, we are accepting thestatement made by the counsel for the appellant. 6.In view of the aforesaid decision, we remit the matter backto the Tribunal who will decide the same in accordance with law. 7.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/89