Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.laxmi Jewellery

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP T.C.A.NO.731 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... Appellant -vs- M/s.Laxmi Jewellery,No.65, NSC Bose Road,Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. ... Respondent PRAYER:- Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 08.05.2013 made in I.T.A.No.685/Mds/2012on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,Chennai for the assessment year 2008-09. This Appeal filed against the Order of the Income TaxAppeal Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dated 08.05.2013 inI.T.A.No.685/MDS/2012 in Assessment Year 2008-2009, against theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV in ITA.No.167/2010-11/A-IV, dated 15.12.2011 in PAN.No. in assessment year2008-2009, against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,PAN.No. in Assessment Year 2008-2009. For Respondent : Mr.T.Prmod Kumar Chopda JUDGMENT This appeal, by the appellant/Revenue, filed under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as“the Act”), is directed against the order dated 08.05.2013 made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in I.T.A.No.685/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai (for brevity “the Tribunal”) for theassessment year 2008-09. 2. The appeal was admitted 04.03.2014, on the followingsubstantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in notconsidering the ground raised by the revenue withrespect to the addition of 6381.2 grams ofunaccounted gold to the closing stock, which theassessee claimed to have belonged to Mr.ArunJain.” 3. Heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned counsel forthe respondent. 4. The assessee is a manufacturer of gold jewellery andfiled its return of income on 27.09.2008, for the assessmentyear under consideration AY 2008-09. The case was selected forscrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated20.08.2009 was issued. During the course of assessmentproceedings, the Assessing Officer made certain additions one ofwhich was unaccounted purchase of gold from third parties andaccordingly, the assessment was completed by order dated22.12.2010, making an addition. Aggrieved by the same, theassessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, Chennai (for brevity “the CIT(A)”), who deletedthe addition. Aggrieved over which, the Revenue preferred appealbefore the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugnedorder. 5. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer with regardto the allegation of unaccounted gold purchases was consideredin depth by the CIT(T) and the documents, which were placedbefore the CIT(A) were examined and the CIT(A) recorded afinding that the gold loan was received by the assessee from oneMr.Arun Jain. Further, the assessee had given all documentsrelating to the gold loans taken from Mr.Arun Jain, which wereforwarded to the Assessing Officer probably with a view toobtain a report. The Assessing Officer did not draw any adverseinference about the gold loans taken by the assessee fromMr.Arun Jain. Furthermore, it was found that Mr.Arun Jain is anincome tax assessee. Further, on facts, it was found thatMr.Arun Jain had closed down his gold jewellery shop and afterclosing down his business, the golds were handed over to theassessee. Further, the CIT(A) faulted the Assessing Officer fornot causing any enquiry and simply stating in the remand report that the addition may be confirmed and sustained. Thus, onexamination of the factual position, relief was granted to theassessee. The correctness of this finding was tested by theTribunal once over again, the factual details were consideredand the Tribunal in Paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, hasconcurred with the decision of the CIT(A). 6. Thus, we find that there is no question of law, much lesssubstantial question of law, arising for consideration in thisappeal, as the matter is entirely factual and the firstappellate authority and the Tribunal have decided the issue infavour of the assessee. 7. Thus, for the above reasons, this tax case appeal by theRevenue is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai.2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Business Circle - XI, IInd Floor,Kannammai Building,No.611, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 006. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV,No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai - 600 034. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.39510+1cc to Mr.T.Prmod Kumar Chopda, Advocate, S.R.No.39318 T.C.A.NO.731 OF 2013 VSN-II(CO)PBS/27/08/2021