HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 201 / 2016 Pr Commissioner Of It Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Smt Asha Mandowara ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 02/05/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal by which Tribunal has dismissed appeal of department and confirmed order of CIT(A). 2. Counsel for appellant has framed following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in law in treating transaction genuine only on basis of same made through banking channels despite of facts that Assessing officer has noted that bills are serially numbers and unsigned. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in law in deleting addition of Rs. 7205000/- on account of bogus purchases. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in law in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer on account of royalty charges despite of facts that assessee does not have any mines in her name. (2 of 3) [ITA-201/2016] 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1087227/- on account of royalty charges. 5. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in allowing relief of Rs. 2129706/- out of addition of Rs. 2194186/- made on account of undisclosed value of closing stock." 3. We have heard counsel for appellant. 4. In view of observations made in Tribunal in para no.5,8, 12 & 15 which reads as under:- 5. We have heard rival contentions of both parties and perused material available on record. assessee had proved beyond doubt that purchases were genuine from M/s Manisha Stones. In absense of purchase, no sales can be made. assessee made payment through account payee cheque, filed confirmation from M/s Manisha Stones, PAN number and purchased details of stone. ld Assessing Officer only doubted purchases on basis of bills were serially numbers but supplier was selling goods to assessee only, therefore, bills were serially numbered. other details support assessee's case that these purchases were genuine. Accordingly we uphold order of ld CIT(A). 8. We have heard rival contentions of both parties and perused material available on record. assessee is in export business of stone. Stone is excavated from mines and thereafter through vehicles, it is transported. These vehicles subject of payment of royalty at check post. It is fact that check post are charged royalty on basis of weighment and then issued receipts on basis of vehicle number of most of royalty receipts have been either in name of vehicle or in name of destination it pertained. Therefore, these payments were made by assessee to clear goods from mines directly, which was exported. ld DR had not controverted finding given by ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold order of ld CIT(A). 12. We have heard rival contentions of both parties and perused material available on record. ld Assessing Officer wrongly valued closing stock on basis of sale bill, which has been clarified by assessee before ld CIT(A) as well (3 of 3) [ITA-201/2016] as before us. There was stock lying at port for Rs. 64,480/-, which remained to be included in closing stock, which has been confirmed by ld CIT(A). ld Assessing Officer calculated closing stock on basis of sale price, which included G.P.. working made by ld Assessing Officer is defective, which has been reconciled by assessee during assessment proceedings, before ld CIT(A) as well as before us. Therefore, we uphold order of ld CIT(A). 15. We have heard rival contentions of both parties and perused material available on record. total withdrawals were made by assessee and her family members at Rs. 7,68,607/-, which was much higher than withdrawals made in preceding two years. There is no material available with Assessing Officer that assessee has incurred much more than withdrawals made by her. During year, there is no social/religious function. Both children of assessee are assessed to tax and finding given by ld CIT(A) had not controverted by ld DR. Accordingly, we uphold order of ld CIT(A)." 5. All four issues are required to be answered against department. 6. We are in complete agreement with view taken by Tribunal. 7. Hence, no substantial questions of law arises. appeal stands dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Brijesh 230. Pr Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur v. Asha Mandowara