HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 303 / 2008 C I T Kota ----Appellant Versus M/S Chaman Lal & Brothers ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 426 / 2008 C I T Kota ----Appellant Versus M/S Chaman Lal & Ors ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 445 / 2008 C I T Kota ----Appellant Versus M/S Chaman Lal & Brothers ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 29/05/2017 In all these appeals identical question of law and facts are (2 of 3) [ ITA-303/2008] involved and they relate to same assessee therefore, they are decided by this common judgment. 1. By way of these appeals, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has partly allowed appeal of assessee and dismissed appeal of department. 2. This court while admitting matters framed following question of law:- i) Whether under facts and circumstances of case and in law Tribunal is justified in directing Assessing Officer to allow set off against profit on unrecorded sales of firm against income of partner surrendered by him in his individual capacity? In DBITA No. 426/2008 i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Hon ble ITAT is right in directing AO to allow set off of debtors against declared undisclosed income, despite fact that income generated on account of undisclosed sales related to post period whereas set off ordered to be allowed relates to prior period? In DBITA No. 445/2008 i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Hon ble ITAT is right in directing AO to allow set off of debtors against declared undisclosed income, despite fact that income generated on account of undisclosed sales related to post period whereas set off ordered to be allowed relates to prior period? 3. Taking into consideration factual matrix, CIT(A) and Tribunal have granted benefit in favour of assessee. 4. In our considered opinion, there is nothing wrong committed by authority in change of Constitution of partnership and (3 of 3) [ ITA-303/2008] taking into consideration factual matrix, Tribunal has dismissed appeal of department and partly allowed appeal of assessee. 5. No substantial question of law arises. 6. Hence, issue is required to be answered in favour of assessee against department. 7. appeals stand dismissed. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/14-16 CIT, Kota v. Chaman Lal & Brother