Plastomet v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur
[Citation -2017-LL-0502-83]

Citation 2017-LL-0502-83
Appellant Name Plastomet
Respondent Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/05/2017
Assessment Year 1993-94
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags books of account • natural justice • bogus purchase • res judicata • rejecting books of account • cross-examination • reasonable opportunity

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 494 / 2011 M/S Plastomet ----Appellant Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 02/05/2017 1. Delay condoned on oral requests. Other defects are waived. 2. In view of averments made in application (27182/2008), same is allowed. 3. By way of this appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed appeal filed by assessee. 4. Counsel for appellant has framed following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether, Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition of Rs.540220/- as made by Assessing Officer, treating as bogus purchases for assessment year 1993-94, on basis of finding recorded in assessment year 1992-93, without examining case independently is proper, irrespective of fact that no res-judicata applied in income tax proceedings? (ii) whether, Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition and holding that purchases made by appellant of Rs.540220/- are bogus as made by Assessing Officer on basis of statement recorded on 22.12.1993 and bank enquiries, (2 of 2) [ITA-494/2011] irrespective of fact that statement and enquiries were made from back of appellant in assessment year 1992-93 and no opportunity was given for cross examining, such addition is proper? (iii) Whether, order passed by Assessing Officer and sustained by Tribunal can be said to be proper, while sustaining addition of Rs.540220/-, which is in violation of principle of Natural Justice, such order passed by A.O. dated 04.12.1994 is proper? (iv) Whether, any evidence/ enquiry which is taken behind assessee can be used against assessee without given, chance for cross examining/confronting as done by Assessing Officer and sustained by Tribunal, while holding addition of Rs. 540220/- against appellant? (v) Whether, Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition of Rs.540220/- on account of purchases made by M/s Bajaj and Company and shown in books of account treated as bogus irrespective of fact that books were not rejected by assessee officer? 5. In view of concurrent finding of both authorities, no substantial question of law arises. appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Brijesh 39. Plastomet v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur
Report Error