Jyoti v. Jani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 428 of 2018 ==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVersusM/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES ========================================================== Appearance:MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 02/05/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.10.2017 raising following questions for our consideration: “1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,84,58,054/- made on account of bogus purchase? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,23,85,600/- made on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank accounts? 3.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 56,91,610/- made on account of addition made on account of undisclosed income?” C/TAXAP/428/2018 ORDER 2. First question pertains to the assessee's purchases which were found to be bogus. CIT (A) and the Tribunal, while confirming these findings, however, refused to add the entire amount of such purchases by way of income of the assessee on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not found any discrepancy or fault with the stock register and sales of the assessee. In essence thus, in opinion of the said authorities, the profit element embedded in such purchases is not accounted. Entire amount should be added. We are broadly in agreement with the authority. No question of law arises.found to be bogus. CIT (A) and the Tribunal, while confirming these findings, however, refused to add the entire amount of such purchases by way of income of the assessee on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not found any discrepancy or fault with the stock register and sales of the assessee. In essence thus, in opinion of the said authorities, the profit element embedded in such purchases is not accounted. Entire amount should be added. We are broadly in agreement with the authority. No question of law arises. 3. The remaining two additions which were either reduced or deleted also have relation to the additions sustained by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal regarding bogus purchases. The CIT(A) in particular, gave elaborate reasons to record that having made addition of 25% of the amount of doubtful purchases, separate additions, as suggested by the Assessing Officer were not justified since these amounts would be telescoped into the additions sustained. Essentially, the issues are factual in nature, no question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed.deleted also have relation to the additions sustained by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal regarding bogus purchases. The CIT(A) in particular, gave elaborate reasons to record that having made addition of 25% of the amount of doubtful purchases, separate additions, as suggested by the Assessing Officer were not justified since these amounts would be telescoped into the additions sustained. Essentially, the issues are factual in nature, no question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J) JYOTI V. JANI (B.N. KARIA, J)