D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. M/ S.kishore Kumar Anil Kumar Virendra Singh Jhala & Party, Kota

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR :: JUDGMENT :: D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.284/ 2009The Commissioner of Income Tax, KotaVs. M/ s.Kishore Kumar Anil Kumar Virendra Singh Jhala & Party, Kota 24.03.2015 HON'BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. SUNI L AMBW ANIHON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE AJI T SI NGH Ms.Parinitoo Jain with Mr.Mukesh Meena for the appellant-Department. Reportable * * * * * * * * 1.Shri Mahendra Gargieya is representing the respondent. His name is shown in the cause list. No one appears for the respondent. 2.This Income Tax Appeal has been admitted on the substantialquestions of law, as follows: - “1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that thepurchases to the tune of Rs.15,06,160/ - were genuine evenwhen the purchase bills and whereabouts of the partieswere not filed before the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the order of the Tribunal is perverse in upholdingthe order of CIT(A) in admitting the fresh evidence withoutallowing proper opportunity to the Assessing Officer as perprovisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?” 3.Question No.1 is a question of fact, which does not require anyadjudication and the decision of the Court. The findings recorded bythe Tribunal, that the purchases to the tune of Rs.15,06,160/ - were genuine, are findings arrived at on the appreciation of the accountsand supporting documents, which do not call for any interference bythe High Court. 4.So far as question No.2 is concerned, we find that the Tribunalhad given adequate reasons, for relying upon the fresh evidence,which was filed with regard to purchase bills and transportationreceipt, which could not be traced during the assessment proceedings,and which were produced before the CIT(A) as additional evidence,under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal has heldthat the CIT(A) has concurrent jurisdiction, and had the power to makeenquiries in the matter. It concurred with the views of the CIT(A), thatthe assessee had made the sales against the purchases made. Thesales were not disputed. At the same time, the sources of purchaseswere also not disputed. The AO had not disputed the gross profitdeclared on the sales. 5.We find that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had given good andsufficient reasons to accept the additional evidence, and thus, thequestion No.2 is decided in favour of the assessee and against theDepartment. 6.The Income Tax Department will proceed accordingly. ( AJI T SI NGH) ,J. ( SUNI L AMBW ANI ) ,CJ. Skant/ -, Proof Reader Al l t he cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at edi n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed. Shashi Kant Gaur ,Pr oof Reader