IN THE HUN’KLE'HIGH COURT OF J UDICA'l URL h UR CHHATTISGARH AT BILSPUR Tax Case N0.%§i2 20 MW Div‘gmn g§§§§ , "7 f Q2 _ W ABPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF ‘ ‘ INCOMETAX E \p:$1 wk RAIPUR gurv\ ‘*""‘* . 1 £2W" VERSUS ¢3‘@‘3"’§”" ’ , RESPONDENT (OE ANUP SILVER 'jfAssessee) ' PALACE, " Anup Plaza, Sadar Bazar, ’ ‘t ‘ Raipur(C.G). i ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 : . Xi APPEAL UNDER SECTION 26‘5—A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ”Tm o5£(‘;w”“' ’OégjQWS WW W1 zoo mm (Wu) EWW§?§€IW %wmum’¥r HIGH COURT OF GHHARTTISGARH AT B!LASPUR Comm:- Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Han’b!e Shri RN‘ Chandmkar, JJ Appellant Rounnua laA Case(PR No 106?!2009 \ Co ‘nmissioner Rai ur (CG) of income Tax. Respondent As<es¢ae l Appellant Revenue Respondent Assessee Appellant Revenue Respondent Assessee Appellant Revenue Versu ; M/s Anuo Silver Palace. Amp Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CC) Tax Case PR) No 107312009 Commissioner of Ancome Tax, Raipur (CG) Versus M/s Anup Silver Palace. Anup Plaza, Sédar Bazar, Ralpur (CG) Tax Case (PR) No.1074I2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Raidiumce) Versus‘ M/s Anup Silver Palace, Anus Plaza, Sadar £azar, Raipur (OGI Tax case IPR)iNo.1o75/2oos Corr§missioner of income Tax, Raigur(CG) , s" Versus . 7619a; WWW" F/{g W 2G0 mm (WW) Ez'ufaw‘qwmwa‘ftm /9\_ at ates was Respondent M {s Anup Silver Palace‘ Assessee Arhup Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG) Apnea! under Section 260 -A of income Tax Act, 1961 Present: Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, counsei for the appellant. Or‘ i Order (Passed on ‘” of Ju!y, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J:- 'T§X Case (PR) Nos.1073/ 009, 1074/200Q and 107512009 are being disppsed of by a common rder. AH these cases arise out three different appeals agalnst the 0rd r of Commissioner of lncorne Tax (appeals) and the same has‘be n disposed of'by the lncome Tax l Appellate Tribunal by the impugne‘ order. However, the Tax Case (PR) l No.1067i2009 has been taken as a leading case and the facts of this case are dealt with in this order (2) The matters are listed or default. However, the default is condoned. (3) The appellant/Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act’ 1961 against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. ‘Whether on the facts and in the ciLcaumstanoes of the case, the Hon’blé ITAT were justmed in law in connrming the ordeir of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.8,83,273l— made by the Assessing Ofncer on e—woou . . Tit?” Con'lgw g x : ? \ fazc, mm 111 200 311%? W (Wu) ‘ mwmw mWW§WW / a $mm ’5 2. ‘Wheiher on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT were justified in law in hoiding the silver an‘icies soid by the assessee \J during the previous y‘ear as pure, when no stock was avaiiabie for puriy test on the date of search, but puriwtest had be n conducted in the case of its sister concem and so piier and purity was found to be 70% while rates ere charged for 100% pure silverr ~ a (4) Briefly stated, the facts of th case are that the respondent is a partnership tirm engaged in the busi ess of trading in siJyer articles. The business was closed on 31.03.2004 and on that day, there was no stock of silver articles with the responde t. In response to the notice under Section 153A, the respondent filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.‘l,59,334l—. The asses ment was completed under Section 153A of the Act computing the total ncome of Rs.10,42,607/— as against Rst‘l,59,334/- disclosed by the appetlant. On appeal by the respondentiassessee, 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 Assessrnq Offcer that the appellant earned 30% mgre proft over and above the amount disclosed in his r tum is baseless and unsustainable. There is no such material/evidence ig support of such addition; The order of the CIT (Appeals) has been subsequently confirmed by the income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order (mag 4. 73 y {u WW ....... ¢HU¢ T—l“ 11m [G mm / TMC9ge (PE) a1 200a mm (Wm material/evidence for the Assessing substantial question of iaw arises fi appeal. being without substance deserves to be and is accordingly T " ‘dismissed. i a ' xi 5(8) Nosi 1 073/2009, 1074/2009 and 1075 /2009. Sd/- Dhirendra Mis ra Judge below have recorded a concurrent fihding of fact that there was no such Officer for making the addition. No )r adjudication of this appealv The A'coipy of this order be placed in the fries of Tax Case (PR) / _ ‘ i :4 wt mm q _ 37W WW a fsl'ziW “Mv s aimm (5) After Garefuny examining the order of the CIT (Appeals) as also the order of income Tax Appellate T‘ribunal. we find that both the Fomms