Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii ,Jaipur v. Shri Arun Kumar Kothari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 240 / 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II ,JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus SHRI ARUN KUMAR KOTHARI, PROP. M/S PYRAMID EXPORTS, C-106, SAVITRI PATH, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. Prateek KedawatFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 25/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partlyallowed the appeal of the department. 2.This court while admitting the appeal on 27.11.2013 framedfollowing substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT was justified in holding that thepurchases made by the assessee were genuineand the Assessing Officer was not justified inmaking the addition u/s 69C and its proviso.” 3.Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is squarelycovered by the decision of this court in Commissioner of IncomeTax, Jaipur vs. M/s Sambhav Gems Ltd., D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.433/2009 decided on 2.11.2016 wherein it has been held asunder:- “3. 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 of theHigh Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay OilcakeIndustries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009)316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle oflaw pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 4. We remit back the case to the Assessing Officerfor deciding afresh on the factual matrix. Theauthority will accept the law but the transactionwhether it is genuine or not will be verified by theAssessing Officer on the basis of the aforesaid threejudgments.” 4.Counsel for the respondent has placed on record copy oforder dt. 24.10.2011 whereby after remand the CIT(A) hasalready decided the appeal partly in favour of assessee which isnot challenged by the department. The order is taken on record. 5.In that view of the matter, this appeal has now becomeacademic. The issue is answered in favour of assessee. The appeal stands disposed of. (INDERJEET SINGH)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. Brijesh 166.