Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur v. Smt Asha Mandowara

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 196 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Smt Asha Mandowara ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. MathurFor Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGHJudgment 17/05/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal by which the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department and confirmed the orderof CIT(A). 2.While admitting the appeal, this court has framed the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the totaltrading additions despite of the facts that the rejectionof books of accounts u/s 143(3) have been upheld?” 3.We have heard counsel for the appellant. 4.Counsel for the appellant contended that the issue involved in the appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 201/2016 decided on 2[nd] May, 2017,wherein it has been held as under: In view of the observations made in the Tribunal inpara no.5, 8, 12 & 15 which reads as under:- 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both theparties and perused the material available on therecord. The assessee had proved beyond doubt thatthe purchases were genuine from M/s ManishaStones. In absense of purchase, no sales can bemade. The assessee made payment through accountpayee cheque, filed confirmation from M/s ManishaStones, PAN number and purchased details of stone.The ld Assessing Officer only doubted the purchaseson the basis of bills were serially numbers but supplierwas selling goods to the assessee only, therefore, billswere serially numbered. The other details support theassessee's case that these purchases were genuine.Accordingly we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both theparties and perused the material available on therecord. The assessee is in the export business ofstone. Stone is excavated from the mines andthereafter through vehicles, it is transported. Thesevehicles subject of payment of royalty at the checkpost. It is a fact that the check post are chargedroyalty on the basis of weighment and then issuedreceipts on the basis of vehicle number of most of theroyalty receipts have been either in the name ofvehicle or in the name of the destination it pertained.Therefore, these payments were made by theassessee to clear the goods from the mines directly,which was exported. The ld DR had not controvertedthe finding given by the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, weuphold the order of the ld CIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both theparties and perused the material available on therecord. The ld Assessing Officer wrongly valued theclosing stock on the basis of sale bill, which has beenclarified by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) as wellas before us. There was a stock lying at the port forRs. 64,480/-, which remained to be included in theclosing stock, which has been confirmed by the ldCIT(A). The ld Assessing Officer calculated the closingstock on the basis of sale price, which included G.P..The working made by the ld Assessing Officer isdefective, which has been reconciled by the assesseeduring the assessment proceedings, before the ldCIT(A) as well as before us. Therefore, we uphold theorder of the ld CIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both theparties and perused the material available on therecord. The ld Assessing Officer wrongly valued theclosing stock on the basis of sale bill, which has beenclarified by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) as wellas before us. There was a stock lying at the port forRs. 64,480/-, which remained to be included in theclosing stock, which has been confirmed by the ldCIT(A). The ld Assessing Officer calculated the closingstock on the basis of sale price, which included G.P..The working made by the ld Assessing Officer isdefective, which has been reconciled by the assesseeduring the assessment proceedings, before the ldCIT(A) as well as before us. Therefore, we uphold theorder of the ld CIT(A). 15. We have heard the rival contentions of both theparties and perused the material available on therecord. The total withdrawals were made by theassessee and her family members at Rs. 7,68,607/-,which was much higher than the withdrawals made inpreceding two years. There is no material availablewith the Assessing Officer that the assessee hasincurred much more than the withdrawals made byher. During the year, there is no social/religiousfunction. Both the children of the assessee areassessed to tax and finding given by the ld CIT(A) hadnot controverted by the ld DR. Accordingly, we upholdthe order of the ld CIT(A)." 5.The issue is required to be answered against thedepartment. 6.We are in complete agreement with the view taken by theTribunal. The appeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/96