IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR CHHATTISGARH AT BILSPUR Tax Case N0. g - 0f 2009 givwim"? Baggh : COMMISSIONER OF //’INC0METAX RAIPUR APPELLANT (/(Reven ue M/S ANOOP SILVER /PALACE, Anoop Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur(C.G). § j§Asessee) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 /7 E ) ¢ WW ~ %%Wbg€ P3 20 mm (Wu) 0 \ waft-am WW‘§WW $aifcman€$r HIGH COURT OF CHHARTTIS Coram:- GARH AT BILASPUR Hon’ble Shri Dh'lrendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N .T.A No. Com Raip v . Chandrakar, JJ 066/20 109 ssioner of Income Tax, u Versus M/s Plaza, Agpeal under Section 260 Present: Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, g Oral Or Per Dhirendra Mishra, J:- (Passed on Heard. The matter is Iisted on ‘defau‘l‘ Also heard on admission. The appellant/Revenue has preferr Respondent op Silver Palace, Anoop dar Bazar, Raipur (CG) of Income Tax Act, 1961 :ounsel for the appellant. der 101“ July, 2009) , However, the default is condoned. d this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstt e order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT were justified in law in confirming the order o the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.12,61 ,730/- \ \ I P - o a 31mm (Wu) WWW ‘ WWW?! 4y WWW wW ammm $Wm ‘ made by the Asses§sing Officer on account of additional profit?" 2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT were justified in law in holding the silver aries sold by the assessee during the previous ye r as pure, when no stock was available for purity tes on the date of search, but purity test had been. onducted in the case of its sister concern and s be 70% while rates silver. Briefly stated, the facts of case are that the respondent/ assessee is a partnership firm enga ed in the business of silver articles. The business was closed on 31.3.2 04 and on that day, there was no stock of silver articles with the res ondent. ln response to the notice under Section 153A, the-responden filed his return of income declaring . total income of Rs.4,91,020/—.1The assessment was completed under Section 153A of the Act computing t e total income of Rs.17,52,750l- as against Rs.4,91,020/— disclosed by the appellant. On appeal by the respondent/assessee, the Commissi ner of Income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the appeal and held that f ier and purity was found to re charged for 100% pure perusal of the assessment order and the assessment report submit d by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that there was no material record to show that any separate purity test was carried out at the tim of search. The conclusion drawn tc u l e e r o MwQC g§ / WWW @ @ mW.z. wgUK) vow/a9 mmwsiaaw After carefully examining the order of the CIT (Appeals) as also the order of income Tax Appellate T ibunal, we find that both the Forums . below have recorded a concurrent f ing of fact that there was no such a...“ material/evidence for the Assessing Officer for making the addition. No substantial question ’oflaw arises f r adjudication of this appeal. The appeal being without substance ' eserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. \ i ‘\ Sdl- v » v R.N Chandrakar g. ' Judge v . h Sd/— i DmENDRA MISI-mA l ' Judge i d i WWW maréwm ‘ Wwm mm§Wm %aiman%m by the Assessing Offiéer that the ap ellant earned 30% more profit over and above the amount disclose in his return is baseless and unsustainable. There is no such aterial/evidence in support of such x addition. The order of the CIT, Appeals) has been subsequently V confirmed by the Income Tax Appell te Tribunal by the impugned order.