IN"'rH’E’H6N3iii’iiiCH COURT 611* JUbiéATUkE FOR CHHATTISGARH AT BILSPUR Tax Case N0. Q O 012mg §W§8IQH B®R%h E : / COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX RAIPUR APPELLANT Revenue) VERSUS (Si/S ANUP SILVER ALACE, Anup Plaza, Sadar Bazar, RgSPONDENT V , o/Singn Raipur(C.G). (Assessee) \E ASSESSMENT XEAR i 2001—2002 l f APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260—A OF THE T INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 .4. . .. §i P Ewx , /{-) VQ/S‘zomywo- 106%20‘3 h aria W (Wu) ‘ 'rr ‘rw. {aw ‘Lwmm » q ‘W‘mmn « WW énaifanam W fa”!m ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHARTE‘ ISGARH AT BILASPUR Teoramh Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & § 4 Hon’ble Shri §.N. Chandrakar, JJ 1 Tax Casenm No.1os712009 Appellant Co 'missioner of Income Tax: Revenue Rai ur(CG) "‘ ‘ Versu_ Resnondent M/s Anup Silver Palace, Assessee Anup Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur ; . (CG) ' ‘ ‘ Tax Case‘PR) No.1073l2009 Appellant Corlwmissioner of Income Tax, Revenue Raipur (CG) Versui Respondent M/s‘Anup SilverEalace, Assessee An Plaza, Sa‘dar Bazar, Ralpur (C Tax Case PR No.1074l2009 Appellant Co missioner of Income Tax, Revenue Ral ur(CG) Respondent M/s Anup Silver Palace, ASeessee * Anua Plaza, Sadar Bazar,o Raipur , (CG! a Tax Case PR mm z Appellant ‘ Corr missioner of Income Tax, Revenue Raipur(CG) , yersug WQW a q. FrW‘WWPQ‘ {351m [ii (TmQt. [kg/00 Hi 200 mmqa’WKw : w: m wki3? ”awmmmvgwnw ,% kmm Respondent : Mlfs Anuo Silver Paiace. Assessee Arhup Piaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG) Angeal underSection 260 -A of Income Tax Act, 1961 Present: Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, counsel for the appellant. (17 § . O Order ,v (Passed on Per Dhirendra Mishra, J:- Tax Case (PR) Nos.1073/ 009, 1074/2009 anq 1075/2009 are der. AH these cases arise out three different appeals against the o of Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) and the same has be n disposed of by fhe income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugn order. However, the Tax Case (PR) l No.1067/2009 has been taken as a leading case and the facts of this l case are dealt with in this order. (2) The matters are listed or default However. the default is ‘ condoned. (3) The appellant/Revenue hasi preferred this appeal under Section 260—A of the income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the income Tax ’ / Appellate Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law:- V ’@ 4 " of July, 2009) r y ‘ r being disposed‘of by a common 1. ."Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of/ “‘ the case, the Hon’blé ITAT were justmed in law in conflrming the ordejr of the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.8,83,273!— made by the Assessing Officer on W ’ ‘ fiw».# m_‘_._u.~.,- _--,,l r l r r r $71 21km"! I 9);.”n.”;m than: In q? mm (r&mC[fQ//0 W1 200 mmmai’jmztx mmmwéw I £Wmaf§mm /’5 — $3ifanm 2. ”Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of 1' the case, the Hon’ble {TAT were justified in (aw in hoiding the silver am'cles sotd by the assessee during the previous ar as pure, when no stock was available for puri test on the date of search‘ but purity test had be n conducted in the case of its f sister concem and su piier and purity was found to be 70% whiie rates ere charged for 100% pure silver. . i(4) Briefiy stated, the facts of t case are that the respondent is a ipartnership firm engaged in the busi ess of trading in silver articles. The sbusiness was closed on 31 03.2004 and on that day, there was no stock of silver articles with the responde . in response to the notice under Section 153A, the respondent filed his return of income deciaring total income of Rs.1,59,334/~. The asses ment was completed under Section 153A of the Act computing the total ncome of Rs.10,42,607/— as against Rs.1,59,334/- disclosed by the appellant. On appeal by the : respondent/assesses, the Commiss oner of income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the appeal and held that fr m perusal of the assessment order and the assessment report submi ed by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that there was no material n record to show that any separate purity test was carried out at the time‘of search. The conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer that the appellant earned 30% more” proht over and above the amount disclosed in his rétum is baseless an‘d‘ unsustainable. There is no such material/evidence in support of such addition; The order of the CIT (Appeals) has been subsequently contirmed by the income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order. (Wa,’4— (5) After carefuHy examining the Xthe order of income Tax Appeuate T below have recorded a concurrent fl materiakievidenoe for the Assessing rsubstantial r question of law arisesf: wai'a’fnmfit‘fstém‘aw r L1 v $mm order of the CIT (Appeals) as also ‘ibunal. we find that both the Forums ‘1ding of fact that there was no sUch Officer for making the addition. No 3r adjudication of this appeal The eserves to be and Is according iappeal being without substance c dismissed (6) A copy of this order be placed in the flles of Tax CaseE/PR) Nos‘1o73/2009, 1074/2009 and 1075/2009. I ~ Sd/— l .SdA Dhirendra Mishra l Judge Priya l 3 ELDL(3nuuhakar t Judge t