CIT, Jaipur v. Valentine Jewellery - 2017-LL-0518-61

Citation	2017-LL-0518-61
Appellant Name	CIT, Jaipur
Respondent Name	Valentine Jewellery
Court	HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	18/05/2017
Judgment	View Judgment
Bot Summary:	By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Department. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the purchases made by the assessee were genuine and the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of 69C and its proviso despite of the fact that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of purchases 3 Heard learned counsel for the parties. We remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 660/2009 C I T Jaipur Appellant Versus M/S Valentine Jewellery Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 18/05/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of Department. 2. While admitting appeal, this Court framed following substantial question of law: Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT was justified in holding that purchases made by assessee were genuine and Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking provisions of 69C and its proviso despite of fact that assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving genuineness of purchases ? 3 Heard learned counsel for parties. 3.1 It is not in dispute that controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by decision of this Court in CIT, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Vs. M/s Aditya Gems, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. (2 of 2) [ITA-660/2009] 234/2008, decided on 2.11.2016, wherein it has been held as under: Considering law declared by Supreme Court in case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby Supreme Court has dismissed SLP and confirmed order dated 09.12.2014 passed by Gujarat High Court and other decisions of High Court of Gujarat in case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, parties are bound by principle of law pronounced in aforesaid three judgments. 4. We remit back case to Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on factual matrix. authority will accept law but transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by Assessing Officer on basis of aforesaid three judgments. issue is answered accordingly. matter is remitted back to Assessing Officer. appeal is disposed of. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. bm gandhi 38 CIT, Jaipur v. Valentine Jewellery

Metadata

Judgment