\- X-HC—^x o? \^ ^JXG. ^rsi •^ww^. y'fli-'-i'is, rsi^fWH' -^^ (^^^r^^~ l^^a^^ Ultldl *MI<t> "^^-^^"^"^^^^^^^^^^"-" ^ 200 '••~rT}^. r^. :-T"^ i •iv aii^i grqw j s^\ Tl^? ('^f3^1') yRnwafya 's^i HIGH COURT OF CHHARTfrlSGARH AT BII.ASPUR Coram:- ABBellant Revenue Respondent Assessee Appellant Revenue Respondent Assessee Appellant Revenue Respondent Assessee Appellant Revenue Hon'bte Shri Phirendra Mishra & HonlileShri Tax CaselPR Coilnmissioner of Income Tax, Rait)ur(CG) VMSU M/sj Ani) (cq Tax Case(PRl Ra Versu Tax CaselPR Rai Versy M/s qiwi-i<il-f ^w-f, ^ feta <i-«<i< ^; WtTO 3iKfT .N. Chandrakar. JJ No.1067/2009 Anup Silver Palace, p Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur No.1073/2009 Corjimissioner of Income Tax, j)ur (CG) M/s|Anup Silver Palace, Anit> Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CGfc No.1074/2009 Conlimissioner of Income Tax, tur (CG) lAnup Silver Palace, Anut> Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG( Tax Case (PRtlNo.1075/2009 Corrimissioner of Income Tax, RaiOur(CG) . Versus C^v^a <-•-£. X:-r-C- •^dld'-!. •a<Tll-'.-"i'3. ;'-c'ii^'i< inWfT**1iq» TFI,200 -T??I •sf ~"W 'W iflCT aTRW K MR?;TR'!7(':pT5^I) ,TgfB|-!fR( WS?f. V[ fS'S UW-tK ^_ V 3?fTO M^ Respondent Assessee Mi Ai|iup Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CJS) Aepeai ynder Section 260 Present: Shri S. Rajeshwar F^ao, counsei for the appellant. (Passed on |7tn of July, 2009) .Per^hirendra MishraLJ:- 's AnuD'Silver Palaoe. A pf Income Tax Act, 19S1 OrAI Order Tax Case (PR) Nos. 10734 being disposed of by a common c| ?Q09, 1074/2009 and 1075/2009 are rder. All these cases arise out three different appeals against the orc^r of Commissioner of Income Tax .(appeals) and the same has be^n disposed of by the Inoome Tax Appellate Tribunat by the impugnecf No. 1067/2009 has been taken as| case are dealt with in this order. (2) The matters are listed orl condoned. (3) The appellant/Revenue has 26Q-A of the Income Tax Act, 1S61 order. However, the Tax Case (PR) a leading case and the faots of this default. However, the default is preferred this appeal under Section against the order of the Income Tax •Appellate Tribunal on the following ^ubstantial questions oflaw:- 1. 'Whether on the factp and in the ciroumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT were Justified in law in confirming the ord^r of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.8,83,273/- made by the Assessing Offioer on --aeeount vV diJdiliui ial'profir?*—-'"'~- - Con^d-. *^ ffife! jilL:i<.K;;;^' T^I ^-il'-il^'J. ^?[TCT!TS. !'qr-l|'H"< -TT '-r r?~^F j -'^T i3lI^?T *fcl7°b WWiT**ll<R -CT^200 ii^I'qT'S {'^- ?3ww fsw w?p 2. 'Wheiher on the fact^ the case, the Hon'blel holding the silver ar\ during the previous ^ was available for purity but purity test had be^ sister concem and su| be 70% while rates silver. and in the. circumstances of ITAT were justified in law in (icles sold by the assessee ^ear as pure, when no stock test on the date of search, )n conducted in the case of its j)plier and purity was found to ^ere charged for 100% pure (4) Briefly stated, the facts of th| business was closed on 31.03.2004 Section 153A, the respondent filed inoome of Rs.1,59,334/-. The asses^ment was completed under Section 153A of the Act computing the total Rs.1,59,334/- disclosed by the resoondenVassessee, the Commissl allowed the appeal and held that fr(] aKrsn^p'fH q;K"t! ft 1^^ ^pT^n' ^ - ^ iifatl 31R»[ p case are that the respondent is a partnership firm engaged in the busi(iess of trading in silver articles. The |and on that day, there was no stock of silver articles with the respondertt. In response to the notice under his return of income deolaring total |ncome of Rs.10,42,607/- as against lappellant. On appeal by the ioner of Income Tax (Appeats) had im pemsal of the assessment order and the assessment report submitted by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that there was no material qn record to show that any separate purity test was carried out at the timej of search. The conolusion drawn by the Assessing OfFicer that the appell^int earned -30% more profit over and above the amount disolosed in his retum is haseless and unsustainable. There is no suoh material/evidence iij] support of suoh addition, The order of the CIT (Appeals) has been subsequently confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order. rtn<^ . - ^. i .» •'%:"^"'^'.^. 'i''' <: %%.a3;g, ii•^' .3 .•!/ 'V:^' ...&/--.r. -r'tL. ..f^,^^ TAJX^^G -pq ^j!.!,|(<|ti, ^^WPS. w"i\w-{' W<T?IT%W<R T^<-&^rpt2-j /&^ ^ 200^ 3^T=f:E'(-^f3^tf) "•^TTi -?TT i3'^ 'qr ai^?T i»rciw FRHW affi7! SiS^T •3 (5) After carefully examining the the order of Income Tax Apoellate Tl below have recorded a concurrent material/evidence for the Asse?sing substantial question of law anses ft appeal being without substance dismissed. (6) A copy of this order be plcjced in the fites of Tax Case (PR) Nos. 1073/2009,1074/2009 and 107^/2009. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge .Li, ^'^^7^ :l^ff?Tr ^T F?tST ^T3f?^?T ^c iifm sn^r order of the CIT (Appeals) as also tibunal. we find that both the Forums fi|iding of fact that there was no such |0fflcer for making the acfclition. No (>r adjudioation of this appeal. The c^eserves to be and is accordingly Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 11-1'