M/S Plastomet v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 494 / 2011 M/S Plastomet ----Appellant Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASOrder 02/05/2017 1.Delay condoned on oral requests. Other defects are waived. 2.In view of the averments made in the application(27182/2008), the same is allowed. 3.By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgmentand order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed theappeal filed by the assessee. 4.Counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial question of law:- “(i) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in sustainingthe addition of Rs.540220/- as made by the AssessingOfficer, treating as bogus purchases for theassessment year 1993-94, on the basis of findingrecorded in the assessment year 1992-93, withoutexamining the case independently is proper,irrespective of the fact that no res-judicata applied inincome tax proceedings?the addition of Rs.540220/- as made by the AssessingOfficer, treating as bogus purchases for theassessment year 1993-94, on the basis of findingrecorded in the assessment year 1992-93, withoutexamining the case independently is proper,irrespective of the fact that no res-judicata applied inincome tax proceedings? (ii) whether, the Tribunal was justified in sustainingthe addition and holding that purchases made bythe appellant of Rs.540220/- are bogus as madeby the Assessing Officer on basis of statementrecorded on 22.12.1993 and bank enquiries,the addition and holding that purchases made bythe appellant of Rs.540220/- are bogus as madeby the Assessing Officer on basis of statementrecorded on 22.12.1993 and bank enquiries, irrespective of the fact that the statement andenquiries were made from the back of the appellantin the assessment year 1992-93 and no opportunitywas given for cross examining, such addition isproper? (iii) Whether, order passed by the Assessing Officerand sustained by the Tribunal can be said to beproper, while sustaining the addition ofRs.540220/-, which is in violation of principle ofNatural Justice, such order passed by the A.O.dated 04.12.1994 is proper? (iv) Whether, any evidence/ enquiry which is takenbehind the assessee can be used against theassessee without given, a chance for crossexamining/confronting as done by the AssessingOfficer and sustained by the Tribunal, while holdingthe addition of Rs. 540220/- against the appellant? (v) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in sustainingthe addition of Rs.540220/- on account ofpurchases made by M/s Bajaj and Company andshown in the books of account treated as bogusirrespective of the fact that books were not rejectedby the assessee officer?” 5.In view of the concurrent finding of both the authorities, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Brijesh 39.