The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Nagpur v. Puranlal Agrawal (Huf) Through Lrs. Smt. Sitadevi & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2010 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Nagpur Vs. Puranlal Agrawal (HUF) through Lrs. Smt. Sitadevi & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S. N. Bhattad, Advocate for the appellant.Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:09 OCTOBER, 2015 Heard.2.During proceedings under Section 153A readwith Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for theassessment year 1999-2000, a long term capital gainearned by assessee on the sale of jewellery was accepted.Commissioner of Income Tax, after examining recordsand making enquiries through Director of Investigation,Ahmedabad, doubted existence of purchaser, namely M/sArihant Jewellery/jewellers, Ahmedabad. It, accordingly,reopened the issue. 3.The assessee approached Income TaxAppellate Tribunal against said order dated 23/3/2009.ITAT, in paragraph-12, has found that insofar asexistence of said concern at Raipur is concerned, the 4.The facts looked into by ITAT are not indispute. In paragraph-25 ITAT has expressly mentionedthat its decision in case of one of the assessees involvingM/s Arihant Jewellers was already accepted by theDepartment. 5.It is, therefore, seen that no substantialquestion of law can be said to arise in the light of thesefacts concluded by the ITAT. The appeal is rejected. No costs. JUDGEJUDGE