Taxc/39/2010 Of Commissioner Of Incometax v. M/S Anup Silver Palace

lwggw,vwEE§35[¢-] ébr‘ x-35IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FORCHHATTISGARH AT BILSPURTax Case No.[ga]OWfO[Eiv‘asinm][ ’E§%h] QAPPELLANTCOMMISSIONER OF./INCOMETAX(’(RevenueW”???[]°]RAIPURIf)[gm]........WgflikpgVERSUSa).[RESPONDENT:(NI/S [ SILVER]‘/(Assessee) PALACE, Anup Plaza, SadarBazar,Raipur(C.G).ASSES‘SMENT YEAR:2003—2004‘ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE‘INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 mm...bAlwjgcxv2f?, // o.. w 200 m[rm:](Wm i'Qi,,..—r”;;£¥zWwwn€@W;ResnondentMAS Anup Siiver Paiace,AssesseeAmupPiaza,SadarBazar,Raipur,(CG)5Apgeal under Section 260A of income Tax Act, 1961‘K_________________________________________3aiPresent:Shri S. Raje§hwar Rao, counsei forthe appellant.-‘uOr IOrder"(Passed[on] of July‘ 2009)2[Per][ Dhirendra][ Mishra,][ J:-]_eTax Case (PR)Nose‘1073/ 009,1074/2009 and 1075/2009 arejbeing disposed of by a commonrder.All these cases arise out threel‘different appealsagainst theorr of Commissioner of Income Tax\(appeals)andthe samehasbeéndisposedof bytheIncomeTaxlAppellate[Tribunal]bytheimpugned order.However, the Tax Case (PR)No.1067/2009 has been taken as a leading case and the facts of thisbase are dealt with in this order.3](2)Themattersarelistedordefault.However,thedefaultiscondoned.(3)The appellant/Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section260—A of the income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax‘Appellate Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law:-l‘"r3ll1.‘Whether on the fade and in the circumstances ofsthe case, the Hon‘ble ITAT were justified in law ln’ ElfEconfirmingtheordejroftheCommissionerof'IncomeTax(Appeals)deletingtheadditionofRs.8,83,273/— made by the Assessing Ofhcer on-W--aecount‘of'additionatprofit?”’“”“’"T‘T'["]T“‘aai‘l(war/(1-.['3] “‘1W‘WW mm I'aDLCs,(5‘7//0m[200]m[200] I (Wm 31123: at-r “‘1W‘WW mm I'aDLCs,(5‘7//0m[200]m[200] I (Wm 31123: at-r 1=¥”?~'W‘vm‘afm W/[’5][ a]aiifanm“Whether2. on the facta andin the circumstances ofthe case, the Hon’ble‘ ITAT were justifiedin law inhoidingthesilverarticlessoldbytheassessee"during the previousar as pure, when no stockwas available for purltest on the date of search,but purity testlhad ben conducted in the case of itssister concem and suplier[and]purity[was][ found][ to]be 70% while ratesere charged for 100% puresilver..'(4)Briefly stated. the facts of tcase are that the respondent is a/[’5][ a]aiifanm“Whether2. on the facta andin the circumstances ofthe case, the Hon’ble‘ ITAT were justifiedin law inhoidingthesilverarticlessoldbytheassessee"during the previousar as pure, when no stockwas available for purltest on the date of search,but purity testlhad ben conducted in the case of itssister concem and suplier[and]purity[was][ found][ to]be 70% while ratesere charged for 100% puresilver..'(4)Briefly stated. the facts of tcase are that the respondent is a,partnership[firm][ engaged][ in][ the][ busi]ess of trading in silver articles.Thebusiness was closed on 31.03.2004 and on that day, there was no stockof silver articles with the responds.In response to the notice underSection 153A,the respondenttiled his return of income declaringtotalincome of Rs'l ,59,334l~.The asses ment was Completed under Section153A of the Act computing the total ncome of Rs.‘lD,42,607/— as against'Rst1,59,334l~disclosedbytheappellant.Onappealbytherespondent/assesses,the Commiss oner of income Tax (Appeals) hadallowed the appeal and held[that]tr m perusal[of] the assessment[order]andtheassessmentreportsubmiedbytheAssessingOfficer,itisevident that there was no materialn record to show that any separateThe conclusion drawn bypurity[test][ was][ carried][ out at][ the][ timeiof][ search.]the Assessing Officer that the appellant earned 30% moreprofit over and/\above the amount disclosed in his returnis baseless and unsustainable.There is no such material/evidence in support of such[ addition,][The][ order]of the CIT (Appeals) has been subseduently[confirmed][ by][ the][ lncome][ Tax]rAppellate Tribunal by the impugned order.umi‘business was closed on 31.03.2004 and on that day, there was no stockof silver articles with the responds.In response to the notice underSection 153A,the respondenttiled his return of income declaringtotalincome of Rs'l ,59,334l~.The asses ment was Completed under Section153A of the Act computing the total ncome of Rs.‘lD,42,607/— as against'Rst1,59,334l~disclosedbytheappellant.Onappealbytherespondent/assesses,the Commiss oner of income Tax (Appeals) hadallowed the appeal and held[that]tr m perusal[of] the assessment[order]andtheassessmentreportsubmiedbytheAssessingOfficer,itisevident that there was no materialn record to show that any separateThe conclusion drawn bypurity[test][ was][ carried][ out at][ the][ timeiof][ search.]the Assessing Officer that the appellant earned 30% moreprofit over and/\above the amount disclosed in his returnis baseless and unsustainable.There is no such material/evidence in support of such[ addition,][The][ order]of the CIT (Appeals) has been subseduently[confirmed][ by][ the][ lncome][ Tax]rAppellate Tribunal by the impugned order.umi‘ (atria 7’ 4 ’§ 0 ’“H."n‘uvw‘.TDW-Cgge (Pg Ibég/ mIbég/[2003] m wwm<WH> Viz: 3?.3‘ 2’i$WM§WWWW.[gfsw] m,MvI{5)After' oarefully examining the order of the CIT (Appeais) as aisothe order of Income Tax Appellate T[‘ibunal]we find that both the Forums find that both the Forums that both the Forums both the Forums the Forums Forumsbielow have recorded a concurrent fmding of fact that there was no suchmaterial/evidenoe[for][ the][ Assessing][ Officer][ for][ making][ the][ addition.]Nosubstantial questionof iaw arises for adjudicationof this appeal.Theappealbeingwithoutsubstancedeservestobeandisaccordingly!dismissed. we find that both the Forums find that both the Forums that both the Forums both the Forums the Forums Forums (atria 7’ 4 ’§ 0 ’“H."n‘uvw‘.TDW-Cgge (Pg Ibég/ mIbég/[2003] m wwm<WH> Viz: 3?.3‘ 2’i$WM§WWWW.[gfsw] m,MvI{5)After' oarefully examining the order of the CIT (Appeais) as aisothe order of Income Tax Appellate T[‘ibunal]we find that both the Forums find that both the Forums that both the Forums both the Forums the Forums Forumsbielow have recorded a concurrent fmding of fact that there was no suchmaterial/evidenoe[for][ the][ Assessing][ Officer][ for][ making][ the][ addition.]Nosubstantial questionof iaw arises for adjudicationof this appeal.Theappealbeingwithoutsubstancedeservestobeandisaccordingly!dismissed. we find that both the Forums find that both the Forums that both the Forums both the Forums the Forums Forums (6)A copyof thisorder beplcedin thetilesof Tax Case$5?)Nos,1073I2009, 1074/2009 and 107009.‘gr_kil-Sd/—Sd/-iR.N. Chandrakar'DhumuhabhduaiJudgePriya