M/S Bhagwan Das Brijendra Singh & Party v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 35 / 2016 M/S Bhagwan Das Brijendra Singh & Party R/o Basan Gate,Bharatpur. Through its Partner Man Singh S/o Shri Kishan Lal ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar 2. I.T.O. Ward-I, Bharatpur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 44 / 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Rajaram Rajendra Bhandari & Party, (Ajmer Group) C-82, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 161 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Mahendra singh & Party (Rajgarh Group), C-82, Prithvi Raj Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 162 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Veer Ji Iqbal & Party, C-29, B.D. Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 163 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Banna Ali Girdhari Singh & Party (Nawalgarh Group). C-23, Malkhera House, Vijay Vihar Colony, Nayakhera, Amba Bari, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 164 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Banna Ali Girdhari Singh & Party (Chirawa Group). C-23, Malkhera House, Vijay Vihar Colony, Nayakhera, Amba Bari, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 165 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Banna Ali Girdhari Singh & Party (Khetri Group). C-23, Malkhera House, Vijay Vihar Colony, Nayakhera, Amba Bari, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 167 / 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Sunil Khan & Party B-18, Lal Kothi, Behind Laxmi Mandir, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 168/ 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Balaji Wines, SB-51, Ganesh Marg, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 194 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Vijaypal Om Prakash And Party, House No. 596 2[nd] Sector, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 201 / 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S N M & Party (Balaji Wines) C-29, Tilsiyan Bhawan, B.D. Road, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 5 / 2016 Principal Commissioner Of I T Jaipur-Ii ----Appellant Versus M/S Rajaram And Party, C-82, Prithvi Raj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 6 / 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Babudeen And Party H.NO. 596, Sector-II Malviya Nagar Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 28 / 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Habib Mohd Raju Khan And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 36 / 2016 M/S Habib Mohd Raju Khan And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, jaipur through its member Shri Badruddin S/o Sh. MangiLal Ji aged 64 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 28 / 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Habib Mohd Raju Khan And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 36 / 2016 M/S Habib Mohd Raju Khan And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, jaipur through its member Shri Badruddin S/o Sh. MangiLal Ji aged 64 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 37 / 2016 M/S Bhanwar Ali Habib Mohd And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur through its member Shri Badruddin S/o Sh. Mangi Lal Ji aged 64 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 38 / 2016 M/S Jaimal Ram And Party 4-D Villa, Station Road, Jaipur through its member Shri Virendra Meel S/o Shri Surja Ram Meel aged 36 years approx. by cast Jat ----Appellant 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, NCRB Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme Jaipur 2. The ACIT, Circle -5 NCRB Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 39 / 2016 M/S Bhanwar Ali Habib Mohd And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur through its member Shri Badruddin S/o Sh. Mangi Lal Ji aged 64 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, , New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 40 / 2016 M/S Babudeen And Party H.No. 596, Sector-II Malviya Nagar Jaipur through its member Shri Badudeen S/o Shri Hakam Ali aged 51 years approx. by cast Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. The Asst. commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 41 / 2016 M/S Habib Mohd Raju Khan And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, jaipur through its member Shri Badruddin S/o Sh. MangiLal Ji aged 64 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 42 / 2016 M/S Babudeen And Party H.No. 596, Sector-II Malviya Nagar Jaipur through its member Shri Babudeen S/o Shri Hakam Ali aged 51 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. The Asst. commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 43 / 2016 M/S Habib Mohd Raju Khan And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, jaipur through its member Shri Badruddin S/o Sh. MangiLal Ji aged 64 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 46 / 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur-I Versus M/s Jaimal Ram & Party, 4-D, Villa, Station Road, Jaipur 2. The Asst. commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 43 / 2016 M/S Habib Mohd Raju Khan And Party D-90, Meera Marg, Banipark, jaipur through its member Shri Badruddin S/o Sh. MangiLal Ji aged 64 years approx. by caste Mohmddan ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 46 / 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur-I Versus M/s Jaimal Ram & Party, 4-D, Villa, Station Road, Jaipur D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Babudeen & Parth, H.No. 596, Sector-II, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 159 / 2014 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur -I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Birbalram Rajendra Poonia & Party, A-51, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 30 / 2016 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur -I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Habib Mohd. Raju Khan & Party, D-90, Banipark, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B.IncomeTaxAppealNo.31/2016Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur -I, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Bhanwar Ali Habib Mohd. & Party. D-90, Meera Marg,Banipark,Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 160 / 2014 M/s Birbalram Ramchandra & Party (Laxmangarh Group) A-51,Hamuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur through its member ShriBhagirath Punia S/o Shri Godhu Ram Punia, aged 67 years,approx. by caste Punia. Versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, NCRB,Statue Circle, Jaipur- 2. The Deputy CIT, Central Circle-I, NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat for Mr. R.B. Mathur, Mr. Anuroop Singhi (appellant in appeal no. 28/2016, 159/2014, 30/2016, 31/2016), Mr.Naresh GuptaAnuroop Singhi (appellant in appeal no. 28/2016, 159/2014, 30/2016, 31/2016), Mr.Naresh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal (Appellant in Appeal No. 35/2016), Mr. Naresh Gupta (respondent in appeal no. 30/2016, 31/2016), Mr. Anil Mehta in appeal no. 160/201435/2016), Mr. Naresh Gupta (respondent in appeal no. 30/2016, 31/2016), Mr. Anil Mehta in appeal no. 160/2014 _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH 21/08/2017 All the appeals arise out of the order of the Tribunal wherebythe Tribunal in spite of the remand by the High Court has not adjudicated the issue properly. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following question of law:- In DBITA No. 35/2016 “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order passed by the learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal is not perverse, arbitrary andcontrary to material on record considering the factthat only the case of the appellant was remanded andnot of the revenue which was not in appeal and theTribunal decided both the appeals? ii) Whether, it is implicit under the provisions ofSection 145(2) of the Act, 1961 to make someadditions on quess or estimation basis when there isno material to support that assessee has earnedhigher income and under these circumstancewhether the trading additions of Rs. 4,00,000/- wasjustified when the same was not supported by anymaterial on record? of law:- In DBITA No. 35/2016 “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order passed by the learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal is not perverse, arbitrary andcontrary to material on record considering the factthat only the case of the appellant was remanded andnot of the revenue which was not in appeal and theTribunal decided both the appeals? ii) Whether, it is implicit under the provisions ofSection 145(2) of the Act, 1961 to make someadditions on quess or estimation basis when there isno material to support that assessee has earnedhigher income and under these circumstancewhether the trading additions of Rs. 4,00,000/- wasjustified when the same was not supported by anymaterial on record? iii) Whether power exercised by the Tribunal can notbe said in excess of jurisdiction, who enhanced theaddition from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/- whichwas disputed in appeal before the High Court, suchconclusion is legally sustainable? iv) Whether in appellate proceedings, the case of theappellant can be put in worse position then the relief claimed by the appellant as done by the Tribunalwhile sustaining the addition from Rs. 2,00,000/- toRs. 4,00,000/-? v) Whether, the Tribunal has power to enhance theaddition that too without notice to the appellant fromRs. 2,00,00 to Rs. 4,00,000/- and such conclusion islegally sustainable? In DBITA No. 44/2016 i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT and CIT(A) were justified in law inrestricting the additions without assigning anyreasons when the invoking of the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act has been upheld? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has not acted perversely in reducingand restricting the trading additions withoutassigning any reasons and making estimation overestimation? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT and CIT(A) has not acted perverselyin reducing and restricting the trading additionswhich were based upon the proper inquiry and afterconsidering the explanation of the assessee andinvoking the provisions of section 145 of the Act? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing relief ofRs. 7,32,55,512/- out of business income determinedby the Assessing Officer. v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the decision of the ITAT is perverse.” In DBITA No. 161/2014 i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT is justified inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing relief ofRs. 64,49,168/- out of trading addition of Rs.74,49,168 without any basis despite the fact that therejection of books of accounts was yupheld? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing relief outof trading addition when the Assessing Officer hasgiven cogent reason for making the addition basedupon the comparable cases?” In DBITA No. 162/2014 I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT is right inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) upholding addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- in an arbitrary andpresumptive manner out of total addition of Rs.97,35,215/-? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT is right in confirmingthe order of the CIT(A) allowing relief of Rs.92,35,215/- when the addition of Rs. 97,35,2015/- tothe trading results was made by the Assessing Officeron a relevant basis i.e. applying net profit rate @1.35% on the sales shown by the assessee. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law the order of the ITAT is notperverse in as much as no basis for upholdingaddition of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the trading resultsustained by the CIT(A) has been given by the ITATin their order?” addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- in an arbitrary andpresumptive manner out of total addition of Rs.97,35,215/-? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT is right in confirmingthe order of the CIT(A) allowing relief of Rs.92,35,215/- when the addition of Rs. 97,35,2015/- tothe trading results was made by the Assessing Officeron a relevant basis i.e. applying net profit rate @1.35% on the sales shown by the assessee. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law the order of the ITAT is notperverse in as much as no basis for upholdingaddition of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the trading resultsustained by the CIT(A) has been given by the ITATin their order?” In DBITA No. 163/2014 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in lawhas not acted perversely in confirming the order ofthe CIT(A) allowing relief of Rs. 1,30,57,175/- outof trading addition of Rs. 1,36,57,180/- withoutgiving any reason despite of the fact that therejection of books of accounts were upheld. ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT has erred in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing relief outof trading addition when the Assessing Officer hasgiven cogent reason for making the addition basedupon the comparable cases.” In DBITA No. 164/2014 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecae and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in lawhas not acted perversely in confirming the order ofthe CIT(A) allowing relief of Rs. 1,67,39,661/- outof trading addition of Rs. 1,79,39,661/- withoutgiving any reason despite of the fact that therejection of books of accounts were upheld. ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT has erred in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing reliefout of trading addition when the Assessing Officerhas given cogent reason for making the additionbased upon the comparable cases.” In DBITA No. 165/2014 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecae and in law the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in lawhas not acted perversely in confirming the order ofthe CIT(A) allowing relief of Rs. 2,43,23,315/- out of trading addition of Rs. 2,52,23,000/- withoutgiving any reason despite of the fact that therejection of books of accounts were upheld. ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT has erred in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing reliefout of trading addition when the Assessing Officerhas given cogent reason for making the additionbased upon the comparable cases.” In DBITA No. 167/2014 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT has right in confirmingthe order of the CIT(A) upholding addition of Rs.3,00,000/- without any basis in an arbitrary andpresumptive manner out of total addition of Rs.10139853/- ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law the ITAT is right inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing reliefof Rs. 9839853/- when the addition of Rs.10139853/- to the trading results was made bythe Assessing Officer on a relevant basis i.e. byascertaining profit margin by way of survey u/s133A in similar trade. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law the order of the ITAT is notperverse in as much as no basis for upholdingadhoc addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the tradingresult sustained by the CIT(A) has been given bythe ITAT in their order?” In DBITA No. 168/2014 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT has right in confirmingthe order of the CIT(A) upholding addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in an arbitrary and presumptivemanner out of total addition of Rs. 7.75 crores. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law the order of the ITAT is notperverse in as much as no basis for upholdingadhoc addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the tradingresult sustained by the CIT(A) has been given bythe ITAT in their order?” In DBITA No. 168/2014 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT has right in confirmingthe order of the CIT(A) upholding addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in an arbitrary and presumptivemanner out of total addition of Rs. 7.75 crores. ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT is right inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) allowing reliefof Rs. 7.66 crores when the addition of Rs. 7.75crores to the trading results was made by theAssessing Officer on a relevant basis i.e. specificdefects pointed out by him remained unexplainedby the assessee. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law the order of the ITAT is notperverse in as much as no basis for upholding addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the trading resultsustained by the CIT(A) has been given by theITAT in their order?” In DBITA No. 194/2015 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT was justified in law in restrictingthe trading addition to Rs. 1500000/- as againstRs. 11554650/- made by the Assessing Officerwithout assigning any reason and withoutconsidering the material on record. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law the order of the ITAT is notperverse in as much as no basis for upholdingaddition of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the trading resultsustained by the CIT(A) has been given by theITAT in their order? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the decision of the ITAT is perverse.” In DBITA No. 201/2015 “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT was justified in law inrestricting the trading addition to Rs.1500000/-as against Rs. 7223088/- made by the AssessingOfficer without assigning any reason and withoutconsidering the material on record. ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the order of the ITAT is notperverse in as much as no basis for upholdingaddition of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the trading resultsustained by the CIT(A) has been given by theITAT in their order? iii)Whether on the facts and in circumstances ofthe case the decision of the ITAT is perverse. In DBITA No. 5/2016 “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT and CIT(A) were justified in law inrestricting the additions without assigning anyreasons when the invoking of the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act has been upheld? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in sustainingtrading addition of Rs.77,00,000/- only as againsttrading addition of Rs.3,22,72,136/- may be theAssessing officer on the basis of estimationwithout reasoned basis.” In DBITA No.6/2016 “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT & CIT(A) were justified in law inrestricting the additions without assigning anyreasons when the invoking of the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act has been upheld? ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has not acted perversely inreducing and restricting the trading additionswithout assigning any reasons and makingestimation over estimation? iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT and CIT(A) has not actedperversely in reducing and restricting the tradingadditions which were based upon the properinquiry and after considering the explanation ofthe assessee and invoking the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act. In DBITA No.6/2016 “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT & CIT(A) were justified in law inrestricting the additions without assigning anyreasons when the invoking of the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act has been upheld? ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has not acted perversely inreducing and restricting the trading additionswithout assigning any reasons and makingestimation over estimation? iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT and CIT(A) has not actedperversely in reducing and restricting the tradingadditions which were based upon the properinquiry and after considering the explanation ofthe assessee and invoking the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act. iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in estimating theassessee sale at Rs.9 crore as againstRs.10,95,14,087/- on which 10% net profit at Rs.90.00 lacs is estimated for both the accounts i.e.country liquor and IMFL and Beer Account. v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the decision of the ITAT is perverse.” In DBITA No. 28/2016 “Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoringthe directions issued by Hon’ble High Court andfindings recorded by itself, thereby on one handobserving that the assessee has failed to produceproper record and has dodged the enquiryprocess and resultantly upholding the rejection ofbooks of accounts, and on the other hand,confirming the addition of only Rs.50,00,000/-without giving any justification for the same,which is much less than the addition earlier madeby it in the order which was quashed by theHon’ble High Court?” In DBITA No.36/2016 “(i) Whether the ld. I.T. Authorities below werejustified in making/sustaining the addition as aresult of necessary concomitant of the rejectionof the books of account u/s. 145(3) in view of theratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court in case ofCIT Vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog reported in[2002] 256 ITR 243(Raj.)? (ii)Whether in theproceedings u/s. 145(3) with section 144 of the Act, addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made without anybasis of computation as also without establishingnexus thereof with the available facts &circumstances is permissible in law? (iii) Whetherthe findings of the ITAT are wholly misconceivedand suffered with erroneous approach insustaining the addition against the settledprinciples of accounting and AccountingStandards notified by the Central Governmentu/s. 145(2) of the Act?” In DBITA No.37/2016 “1.Whether the finding of the ITAT in applyingthe ration of the judgment rendered in case of MacData P. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593 (SC) issuffered with manifest illegality and perversity inignoring the appellant’s explanation and the settledprinciples of law laid down by the larger bench ofthe Hon’ble SC in cases of CIT vs. Anwar Alireported in 76 ITR 696 (SC) and in case of CIT vs.Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9 (SC)etc.? 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law insustaining the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act onthe estimated tradition addition ignoring that thebasic ingredients to attract the provisions containedin Explanation -1 to section 271 (1)(c) of the Actwas not established on record by the revenue.? 3.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could legally be imposed for thetrading addition estimated doubting the sale pricefor want of sale bills and stock register ignoring thetrade practices, customs and the practicability of theliquor trade.? 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law insustaining the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act onthe estimated tradition addition ignoring that thebasic ingredients to attract the provisions containedin Explanation -1 to section 271 (1)(c) of the Actwas not established on record by the revenue.? 3.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could legally be imposed for thetrading addition estimated doubting the sale pricefor want of sale bills and stock register ignoring thetrade practices, customs and the practicability of theliquor trade.? 4.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the finding of the ld.ITAT sustaining the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Actcan be countenanced in law in respect of theestimated trading addition being a debatable pointand the subject matter of the appeals admittedearlier u/s 260 A of the Act.? 5.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT acted on totalmisconception both of facts and law in ignoring theappellant’s explanation and the important materialson record and in applying wholly mistaken tests insustaining the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.? 6.Whether the learned ITAT was justified in ignoringmisappreciating and not considering the facts, evidence, material and submissions available onrecord hence the impugned order and findingarrived at by the learned ITAT is perverse?“ In DBITA No.38/2016 “1. Whether the ld. I.T. Authorities below werejustified in making/sustaining the addition as aresult of necessary concomitant of the rejection ofthe books of account u/s. 145(3) in view of the ratiolaid down by this Hon’ble Court in Case of CIT Vs.Gotan Lime khanij Udhyog reported in (2002) 256ITR 243 (Raj.)? 2. Whether the ITAT had any material and evidenceto sustain the addition of Rs. 540,00,000/-, and assuch, the findings of the ITAT are perverse.? 3. Whether the trading addition made without therebeing established the same to have been earned bythe appellant is a notional, hypothetical or unrealone and thereon the levy and recovery of incometax is permissible.? 4. Whether in the proceedings u/s. 145(3) withsection 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 54,00,000/-made without any basis of computation as alsowithout establishing nexus thereof with theavailable facts & circumstances is permissible inlaw? 5. Whether the findings of the ITAT are whollymisconceived and suffered with erroneous approachin sustaining the addition against the settledprinciples of accounting and Accounting Standardsnotified by the Central Government u/s. 145(2) ofthe Act.? 6. Whether the learned ITAT was justified inignoring, misappreciating and not considering thefacts, evidence, material and submissions availableon record hence the impugned order and findingarrived at by the learned ITAT is perverse?” In DBITA No. 39/2016 “1. Whether the ld. I.T. Authorities below werejustified in making/sustaining the addition as aresult of necessary concomitant of the rejection ofthe books of account u/s. 145(3) in view of the ratiolaid down by this Hon’ble Court in Case of CIT Vs.Gotan Lime khanij Udhyog reported in (2002) 256ITR 243 (Raj.)? 2. Whether the ITAT had any material and evidenceto sustain the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, and assuch, the findings of the ITAT are perverse.? 3. Whether the trading addition made without therebeing established the same to have been earned by the appellant is a notional, hypothetical or unrealone and thereon the levy and recovery of incometax is permissible.? 4. Whether in the proceedings u/s. 145(3) withsection 144 of the Act, addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, made without any basis ofcomputation as also without establishing nexusthereof with the available facts & circumstances ispermissible in law? 2. Whether the ITAT had any material and evidenceto sustain the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, and assuch, the findings of the ITAT are perverse.? 3. Whether the trading addition made without therebeing established the same to have been earned by the appellant is a notional, hypothetical or unrealone and thereon the levy and recovery of incometax is permissible.? 4. Whether in the proceedings u/s. 145(3) withsection 144 of the Act, addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, made without any basis ofcomputation as also without establishing nexusthereof with the available facts & circumstances ispermissible in law? 5. Whether the findings of the ITAT are whollymisconceived and suffered with erroneous approachin sustaining the addition against the settledprinciples of accounting and Accounting Standardsnotified by the Central Government u/s. 145(2) ofthe Act.? 6. Whether the learned ITAT was right in sustainingthe trading addition at a notional, hypothetical orunreal figure and levy and recovery of the incometax thereon is permissible in law.? 7. Whether the learned ITAT was justified inignoring, misappreciating and not considering thefacts, evidence, material and submissions availableon record hence the impugned order and findingarrived at by the learned ITAT is perverse?” In DBITA No.40/2016 “1. Whether the ld. I.T. Authorities below werejustified in making/sustaining the addition as aresult of necessary concomitant of the rejection ofthe books of account u/s. 145(3) in view of the ratiolaid down by this Hon’ble Court in Case of CIT Vs.Gotan Lime khanij Udhyog reported in (2002) 256ITR 243 (Raj.)? 2. Whether the ITAT had any material and evidenceto assume the turnover at Rs. Nine Crores and thenet profit at 10% to make and sustain the addition;and as such, the findings of the ITAT are perverse.? 3. Whether the trading addition made without therebeing established the same to have been earned bythe appellant is a notional, hypothetical or unrealone and thereon the levy and recovery of incometax is permissible.? 4. Whether in the proceedings u/s. 145(3) withsection 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 86,37,692/-,made without any basis of computation as alsowithout establishing nexus thereof with theavailable facts & circumstances is permissible inlaw? 5. Whether the findings of the ITAT are whollymisconceived and suffered with erroneous approach in sustaining the addition against the settledprinciples of accounting and Accounting Standardsnotified by the Central Government u/s. 145(2) ofthe Act.? 6. Whether the learned ITAT was right in sustainingthe trading addition at a notional, hypothetical orunreal figure and levy and recovery of the incometax thereon is permissible in law.? 7. Whether the learned ITAT was justified inignoring, misappreciating and not considering thefacts, evidence, material and submissions availableon record hence the impugned order and findingarrived at by the learned ITAT is perverse?” In DBITA No.41/2016 “1. Whether the ld. I.T. Authorities below werejustified in making/sustaining the addition as aresult of necessary concomitant of the rejection ofthe books of account u/s. 145(3) in view of the ratiolaid down by this Hon’ble Court in Case of CIT Vs.Gotan Lime khanij Udhyog reported in (2002) 256ITR 243 (Raj.)? 2. Whether the ITAT had any material and evidenceto sustain the addition of Rs.20,00,000/-; and assuch, the findings of the ITAT are perverse.? 3. Whether the trading addition made without therebeing established the same to have been earned bythe appellant is a notional, hypothetical or unrealone and thereon the levy and recovery of incometax is permissible.? 4. Whether in the proceedings u/s. 145(3) withsection 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-,made without any basis of computation as alsowithout establishing nexus thereof with theavailable facts & circumstances is permissible inlaw? 2. Whether the ITAT had any material and evidenceto sustain the addition of Rs.20,00,000/-; and assuch, the findings of the ITAT are perverse.? 3. Whether the trading addition made without therebeing established the same to have been earned bythe appellant is a notional, hypothetical or unrealone and thereon the levy and recovery of incometax is permissible.? 4. Whether in the proceedings u/s. 145(3) withsection 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 20,00,000/-,made without any basis of computation as alsowithout establishing nexus thereof with theavailable facts & circumstances is permissible inlaw? 5. Whether the findings of the ITAT are whollymisconceived and suffered with erroneous approachin sustaining the addition against the settledprinciples of accounting and Accounting Standardsnotified by the Central Government u/s. 145(2) ofthe Act.? 6. Whether the learned ITAT was right in sustainingthe trading addition at a notional, hypothetical orunreal figure and levy and recovery of the incometax thereon is permissible in law.? 7. Whether the learned ITAT was justified inignoring, misappreciating and not considering thefacts, evidence, material and submissions availableon record hence the impugned order and finding arrived at by the learned ITAT is perverse?” In DTITA No. 42/2016 “1. Whether the ld. I.T. Authorities below werejustified in making/sustaining the addition as aresult of necessary concomitant of the rejection ofthe books of account u/s. 145(3) in view of the ratiolaid down by this Hon’ble Court in Case of CIT Vs.Gotan Lime khanij Udhyog reported in (2002) 256ITR 243 (Raj.)? 2. Whether the ITAT had any material and evidenceto assume the turnover and gross profit to makeand sustain the trading addition; and as such, thefindings of the ITAT are perverse.? 3. Whether the trading addition made without therebeing established the same to have been earned bythe appellant is a notional, hypothetical or unrealone and thereon the levy and recovery of incometax is permissible.? 4. Whether in the proceedings u/s. 145(3) withsection 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 56,00,000/-,made without any basis of computation as alsowithout establishing nexus thereof with theavailable facts & circumstances is permissible inlaw? 5. Whether the findings of the ITAT are whollymisconceived and suffered with erroneous approachin sustaining the addition against the settledprinciples of accounting and Accounting Standardsnotified by the Central Government u/s. 145(2) ofthe Act.? 6. Whether the learned ITAT was right in sustainingthe trading addition at a notional, hypothetical orunreal figure and levy and recovery of the incometax thereon is permissible in law.? 7. Whether the finding of the ITAT sustaining therejection of books of account u/s. 145(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 suffers from wholly erroneousapproach in law and is perverse? 8. Whether the learned ITAT was justified inignoring, misappreciating and not considering thefacts, evidence, material and submissions availableon record hence the impugned order and findingarrived at by the learned ITAT is perverse?” In DBITA No.43/2016 “(i) Whether the finding of the ITAT in applying theratio of the judgment rendered in case of Mac DataP.Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593(SC) issuffered with manifest illegality and perversity inignoring the appellant’s explanation and the settled principles of law laid down by the larger bench ofthe Hon’ble SC in cases of CIT v. Anwar Ali reportedin 76 ITR 696 (SC) and in case of CIT Vs. SureshChandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9 (SC) etc.? (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law insustaining the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act onthe estimated tradition addition ignoring that thebasic ingredients to attract the provisions containedin Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act wasnot established on record by the revenue?” In DBITA No.43/2016 “(i) Whether the finding of the ITAT in applying theratio of the judgment rendered in case of Mac DataP.Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593(SC) issuffered with manifest illegality and perversity inignoring the appellant’s explanation and the settled principles of law laid down by the larger bench ofthe Hon’ble SC in cases of CIT v. Anwar Ali reportedin 76 ITR 696 (SC) and in case of CIT Vs. SureshChandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9 (SC) etc.? (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law insustaining the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act onthe estimated tradition addition ignoring that thebasic ingredients to attract the provisions containedin Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act wasnot established on record by the revenue?” In DBITA No.46/2016 “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT & CIT(A) were justified in law inrestricting the additions without assigning anyreasons when the invoking of the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act has been upheld? ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has not acted perversely inreducing and restricting the trading additionswithout assigning any reasons and makingestimation over estimation? iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT and CIT(A) has not actedperversely in reducing and restricting the tradingadditions which were based upon the properinquiry and after considering the explanation ofthe assessee and invoking the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act. iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in sustainingtrading addition of Rs. 21332457/- made by theAssessing Officer on the basis of estimationwithout reasoned basis. v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the decision of the ITAT is perverse.” In DBITA No.47/2016 “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT & CIT(A) were justified in law inrestricting the additions without assigning anyreasons when the invoking of the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act has been upheld? ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has not acted perversely inreducing and restricting the trading additionswithout assigning any reasons and makingestimation over estimation? iii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT and CIT(A) has not actedperversely in reducing and restricting the trading additions which were based upon the properinquiry and after considering the explanation ofthe assessee and invoking the provisions ofsection 145 of the Act. iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in applying G.P.rate @ 30% in country liquor account as against40% applied by the Assessing Officer and 2.5% inthe case of IMFL and Beer as against 5% appliedby the Assessing Officer. v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the decision of the ITAT is perverse.” In DBITA No.159/2014 “Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing aself contradictory order, by on one handupholding the rejection of books of accounts u/s145 (3) of the Act and even the application of netprofit rate of 1% on the basis of assessee'sresults for the past years and on the other hand,reducing the addition of Rs. 92,40,494/- tomerely Rs. 17,35,494/-, ignoring the directionsissued by Hon'ble High Court and also withoutgiving any justification for the same?” In DBITA No.30/2016 v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the decision of the ITAT is perverse.” In DBITA No.159/2014 “Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing aself contradictory order, by on one handupholding the rejection of books of accounts u/s145 (3) of the Act and even the application of netprofit rate of 1% on the basis of assessee'sresults for the past years and on the other hand,reducing the addition of Rs. 92,40,494/- tomerely Rs. 17,35,494/-, ignoring the directionsissued by Hon'ble High Court and also withoutgiving any justification for the same?” In DBITA No.30/2016 “Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoringthe directions issued by Hon'ble High Court andfindings recorded by itself, thereby on one handobserving that the assessee has failed to produceproper record and has dodged the enquiryprocess and resultantly upholding the rejection ofbooks of accounts, and on the other hand,confirming the addition of only Rs.20,00,000/- onturnover of Rs.8,05,62,601/- of country liquorand IMFL/Beer without giving any justification forthe same?” In DBITA No.31/2016 “Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoringthe directions issued by Hon'ble High Court andfindings recorded by itself, thereby on one handobserving that the assessee has failed to produceproper record and has dodged the enquiryprocess and resultantly upholding the rejection ofbooks of accounts, and on the other hand,reducing the trading addition of Rs.4,61,81,187/-to merely Rs.1,50,00,000/- without giving anyjustification for the same?” In DBITA No.160/2014 “1. Whether the findings of the ITAT are whollymisconceived and suffered with erroneous approach in sustaining the additions made by theAO against the settled principles of accountingand Accounting Standards notified by the CentralGovernment u/s 145(2) of the Act.? 2. Whetherin the proceedings u/s 145(3) read with section144 of the Act, addition made without any basisof computation as also without establishing nexusthereof with the available facts & circumstances ispermissible in law.? 3. Whether the learned ITATwas right in sustaining the trading addition at anotional, hypothetical or unreal figure and levyand recovery of the income tax thereon ispermissible in law.?” In view of the subsequent development of law and evidence, it is appropriate to remit back the matter to the Assessing Officer. All parties will appear before the Assessing Officer in first week of November, 2017. A