l w EE§ x- 35¢- IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR CHHATTISGARH AT BILSPUR Tax Case No. ga OWfOEiv‘asinm ’E§%h ASSES‘SMENT YEAR : 2003—2004 ‘ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE ‘INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 V\_ gm wggw , ébr‘ v APPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF . Q (’(Revenue /INCOMETAX W”??? ]° If)gm RAIPUR a). Wgflikpg ........ VERSUS [RESPONDENT : (NI/S ANUP SILVER /(Assessee) ‘ PALACE, Anup Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur(C.G). (?M’LC c O W W 1 C}&£(‘9n7)106 'Oégigga‘3 mm Fi 200 mm (Wu) w mm man am m mm uwa‘f 1? fg‘z‘t WK 1 é}; sifm 33m! 3 HIGH COURT OF CHHARTI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR % ‘ Comm:- Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & } Hon’ble Shn R.N. Chandrakar JJ T Tax CaseiPR No.106712009 1 ‘ Appellant ' Commissioner of Income Tax: { Revenue Raibur (CG) .* , Versu Respondent Mls Anup Silver Paiace: Assessee AnLp Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur .k (CO Tax Case (PR1 No.1073l2009 1 Appellant Commissioner of lngome Tax, i Revenue Raipur (CG) Respondent _ Assessee No.1074l2009 Appellant xmissioner of Income Tax, Revenue ' rur (CG) Respondent nup Silver Palace, Assessee Plaza, Sadar Baazar, Raipur i‘ Tax Case PR lNo.1075/2009 Appellant : CO missioner of lncbme Tax, Revenue Raidumcca) _ Versusf mm.. . b Alwjgcxv 2f? , // o.. w 200 i,,..—r”;;£ i m rm: (Wm Q ' ¥ zWwwn€@W ; Resnondent MAS Anup Siiver Paiace, Assessee Amup Piaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (CG) , 5 Apgeal under Section 260A of income Tax Act, 1961 ‘ ________________________________________ K 3a K _ i Present: Shri S. Raje§hwar Rao, counsei forthe appellant. u -‘ Or IOrder (Passed on " of July‘ 2009) 2 Per Dhirendra Mishra, J:- _ e Tax Case (PR) Nose‘1073/ 009, 1074/2009 and 1075/2009 are jbeing disposed of by a common rder. All these cases arise out three l‘different appeals against the or r of Commissioner of Income Tax \(appeals) and the same has beén disposed of by the Income Tax lAppellate Tribunal the by impugned order. However, the Tax Case (PR) No.1067/2009 has been taken as a leading case and the facts of this base are dealt with in this order. 3] (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 income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax l Appellate Tribunal on the following substantial questions of law:- ‘ " r3 l l ‘ 1. ‘Whether on the fade and in the circumstances of s the case, the Hon‘ble ITAT were justified in law ln ’ Elf E confirming the ordejr of the Commissioner of ' Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.8,83,273/— made by the Assessing Ofhcer on -W --aecount‘of'additionatprofit?”’“”“’"T‘T' " T“ ‘ a a i ‘l (war/(1-. '3 “‘1W‘WW I'aDLCs ,(5‘7//0 mm m 200 31123: at-r I (Wm 1=¥”?~'W‘ v m‘afm W /’5 a aiifanm 2. “Whether on the facta and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble‘ ITAT were justified in law in hoiding the silver articles sold by the assessee during the previous " ar as pure, when no stock was available for purl test on the date of search, but purity testlhad be n conducted in the case of its sister concem and su plier and purity was found to be 70% while rates ere charged for 100% pure silver. . ' (4) Briefly stated. the facts of t case are that the respondent is a , partnership firm engaged in the busi ess of trading in silver articles. The business was closed on 31.03.2004 and on that day, there was no stock of silver articles with the responds . In response to the notice under Section 153A, the respondent tiled 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.‘lD,42,607/— as against ' Rst1,59,334l~ disclosed by the appellant. On appeal by the respondent/assesses, the Commiss oner of income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the appeal and held that tr 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 timeiof search. The conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer that the appellant earned 30% more profit over and above the amount disclosed in his return is baseless and unsustainable. /\ There is no such material/evidence in support of such addition, The order of the CIT (Appeals) has been subseduently confirmed by the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order. (atria 7’ 4 um r i‘ %wé@ ’§ 0 .TDW-Cgge (Pg Ibég/ ’ “H."n‘uvw‘ m m 2003 wwm<WH> $WM§WW WW. gfsw m ,Mv {5) After' oarefully examining the order of the CIT (Appeais) as aiso the order of Income Tax Appellate T ‘ibunal we find that both the Forums bielow have recorded a concurrent fmding of fact that there was no such material/evidenoe for the Assessing Officer for making the addition. No substantial question of iaw arises for adjudication of this appeal. The appeal being without substance deserves to be and is accordingly ! dismissed. Viz: 3? .3 ‘ 2’ I i (6) A copy of this order be pl ced in the tiles of Tax Case $5?) Nos,1073I2009, 1074/2009 and 107 009. ‘gr_ i l k i - Sd/— R.N. Chandrakar' Sd/- Dhumuhabhdua i Judge Priya