M/S Mool Chand Kumawat & Sons Bijay Nagar District-Ajmer v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 48 / 2009 M/s Mool Chand Kumawat & Sons Bijay Nagar District-Ajmer Through Its Partner Shri Chiman Lal Kumawat S/o Late Shri Mool Chand Kumawat, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Pipli Chauraha, Bijay Nagar, Distt.-Ajmer. ----Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHURJudgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J. 01/06/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee confirming theorder of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. 2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 22.04.2009 hasframed the following substantial questions of law: “(i)Whether the Tribunal has power andjurisdiction to sustain the application ofSection 145(3), of the IT Act, 1961, asmade by the A.O., which were deleted bythe CIT(A), irrespective of the fact that nochallenge was made by the Assessee orRevenue, while sustaining the lump-sumaddition of Rs.25,000/-? (ii)Whether, the Tribunal was correct inlaw in sustaining the addition ofRs.70,000/- on estimation/lump-sum basistowards expenditure incurred on account ofdumpers/truks/JCB machines, withoutpointing out any specific/defective detail ofexpenditure, such conclusion is legallysustainable?” 3.The Tribunal while considering the matter has considered the each of the ground and has dismissed the appeal consideringthe Gross Profit and other matters. 4.We are of the complete agreement with the view taken bythe Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. 5.In that view of the matter, the issues are answered infavour of the department and against the assessee. 6.The appeal stands dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/72