M/S Gem Exports v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 597 / 2011 M/S Gem Exports through its partner Shri Akshat Ghiya S/o ShriBrijesh Ghiya, 103, Ridhi Sidhi, Ahimsa Circle, ‘C’-Scheme, Jaipurin the state of Rajasthan ----Assessee-Appellant Versus The Assistant Commissioner of income tax, Circle-1, Having it’soffice at Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan DasRoad, Jaipur in the state of Rajasthan. ----Respondent-Other party D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 605 / 2011 M/S Gem Exports through its partner Shri Akshat Ghiya S/o Shri Brijesh Ghiya, 103, Ridhi Sidhi, Ahimsa Circle, ‘C’-Scheme, Jaipur in the state of Rajasthan ----Assessee-Appellant Versus The Assistant Commissioner of income tax, Circle-1, Having it’soffice at Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan DasRoad, Jaipur in the state of Rajasthan. ----Respondent-Other party _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : None present. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 19/07/2017 1.In both these appeal common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment. 2.By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3.This court while admitting the appeals framed following substantial question of law:- 3.1DB ITA No. 597/2011 admitted on 25.4.2012 “Whether on the facts, the learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was right in law inholding that purchases of Rs.3,28,67,126/-made by the appellant from various partiesare non-genuine/bogus when all purchasesare vouched detailed verifiable & all sellersare assessed to Income-Tax, assessed toSales-tax & payments were by A/c PayeeCheques?” 3.2DB ITA No. 605/2011 admitted on 25.4.2012 “Whether on the facts, the learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law in holdingthat purchases of Rs.2,61,18,135/- made bythe appellant from various parties are non-genuine/bogus when all purchases arevouched detailed verifiable & all sellers areassessed to Income-Tax, assessed to Sales-tax& payments were by A/c Payee Cheques? 3.1It is not in dispute that controversy involved in this case issquarely covered by the decision of this Court in CIT, Jaipur-II,Jaipur Vs. M/s Aditya Gems, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.234/2008, decided on 2.11.2016, wherein it has been held asunder: “Considering the law declared by the SupremeCourt in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave toAppeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLPand confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passedby the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of SanjayOilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. IndustriesLtd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound bythe principle of law pronounced in the aforesaidthree judgments. 4.We remit back the case to the AssessingOfficer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix.The authority will accept the law but thetransaction whether it is genuine or not will beverified by the Assessing Officer on the basis ofthe aforesaid three judgments.” 4.The issue is answered in favour of the department. The matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officer. It will be openfor the asseessee to raise all contentions including opportunity of cross-examination before the Assessing Officer. The appeals stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in each file. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Bmg/54-55.