Ita/302/2015 Of Commisioner Of Income Tax-20 v. Sunit Shah & Sons (Huf)

$-28-30 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 302/2015+ITA 303/2015+ITA 304/2015, C.M. No. 8192/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 Appellant Through: Appearance not given, versusSUNIT SHAH & SONS Respondent Through: Appearance not given. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER06.05.2015 % 1. The present appeal questions the common order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the ITAT") dated 19.09.2014arising from assessments for Assessment Years (AY) 2007-08 and 2008-09.It is alleged that deletion sanctioned by the ITAT was unwarranted in thecircumstances of the case. 2. ITA Nos. 302/2015 and 303/2015 concern the same order of AY2007-08. The addition made - in the course of assessment proceedings asurvey was made under Section 133A and was led to certain additions. TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the"CIT(A)"] confirms these additions to the tune of ?7,22,177/-. The ITATwas of the opinion that the explanation of the assessee in the givencircumstances was unwarranted. The explanation quoted by the assesseewas that the amounts denoted gifts by relatives. 3. The ITA No.304/2015 for the subsequent year 2008-09 is alsoconcerned with the similar addition of ?8,75,362/-. Here too, the ITATaccepted the assessee's explanation in the given facts. Considering that these are factual findings, the court finds no merit in the contentions raised.4. Another factual finding with regard to the correctness of thedisallowance of ?1,75,000/- has been recorded. This too is a finding of thefact. No question of law arises. 5. For AY 2008-09, ?28,55,281/- was added due to variation of closingstocks for AY 2008-09. The CIT(A) held that the price assumed by thedepartment in adding back the amount was exorbitant and could not beaccepted. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had recorded sales in thebooks. In these circumstances, the CIT(A) had reduced the valuationoriginally at ^67,43,125/- to ?38,87,485/-. ITAT merely confirmed the saidfinding. It is evident that the CIT(A)'s finding is based on material onrecord. No question of law arises. 6. The last issue is with respect to unrecorded sales on account of whichthe addition of ?32,77,867/- was made. The AO applied GP rate of the 20%of the total unrecorded turnover of ?1,63,89,335/-. The ITAT noticed thatthe AO had brought to tax the entire unrecorded sales instead of bringinginto tax the GP rate found by the AO. This reasoning in our opinion doesnot call for interference. 7. For the above reasons, no substantial question of law arises. 8. The appeals are unwarranted and, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J MAY 06, 2015ik R K G Kiba, J