Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Kedarmal Saini & Party, C

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 13 / 2007 1. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus M/S Kedarmal Saini & Party, C-29, Tulsiyan Bhawan, B.D. Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur.For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHURJudgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri J. 24/01/2017 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 department and confirmedthe order of the CIT(A), by which the order AO was reversed. 2.The facts of the case are that the assessee is a AOP (withindeterminate shares) engaged in the business of liquor sale inBarmer after lifting liquor contract from the Excise Department ofRajasthan. During the course of assessment proceedings variousissues arose, explanation for which were sought during the courseof proceedings in the various hearings from time tot time. Someof the relevant issues were as under: (1).Non issuing of sales bills. (2).Non-maintenance of stock register. (3).Printed rate list. (4).Unverifiable vouchers. (5).Nature of the assessee’s business. In the light of all the observations & discussion held supra i.e. nonissuance of sales bills, no corroborative evidence so as to supportof sales, non-maintenance of stock register, no individual tradingaccount for C.L., IMFL, & Beer, no alternative is left but for therejection of the books u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Therefore, it is very evident from the profit margin as worked outabove that the country liquor has a profit margin around 60% to90%, IMFL and beer has profit margin around Rs.35% to 50%.There may be a difference in the profit margin around of eachparty on account of area/location/population/demand ofvariety/year of operation etc. but more or less the profit margincan vary between 2-5%. In this very particular case of myassessee I decide to take G.P. in case of country liquor as 60%and in case of IMFL and beer as 35%. 3.This Court while admitting the appeal on 08.05.2007 has framed 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 154 of the Act has been upheld? (ii)Whetherinthefactsandcircumstances of the case, the ITAT has notacted perversely in reducing and restrictingthe trading additions without assigning any reasons and making estimation overestimation?” 4.Counsel for the appellant has contended that the issues are covered by the decision of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Ram Singh & Ors. (2014) 363 ITR 417(Raj.), wherein after rejecting of books of accountsthe matter was remitted back to the Tribunal. 5.We have heard counsel for parties. 6.Taking into consideration the binding decision of this Courtboth the issues are answered in favour of the department andagainst the assessee. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunalfor deciding afresh. 7.The appeal stands disposed of. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/79