Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-ii, Jaipur v. B. A. International
[Citation -2017-LL-0724-19]

Citation 2017-LL-0724-19
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-ii, Jaipur
Respondent Name B. A. International
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 24/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags appropriate authority • bogus purchase


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 367 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-ii Jaipur Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market Jaipur Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 85 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 125 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur Appellant Versus M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 566 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -II, Jaipur Appellant Versus (2 of 5) [ ITA-367/2011] M/s B.A. International, B-12, M.G.D. Market, Jaipur Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Sahani with Mr. R.M. Sharma, Mr. Mahendra Gargeiya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 24/07/2017 By way of these appeals, appellant has assailed judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of department and allowed appeal of assessee modifying order of CIT(A). This court while admitting matter has framed following questions of law:- D.B. ITA No. 367/2011 (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and Hon ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of fact that persons managing affairs of firm are not in trade of Gem & Jewellery (3 of 5) [ ITA-367/2011] and Garments but in trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? D.B. ITA No. 85/2011 (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and Hon ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of fact that persons managing affairs of firm are not in trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? D.B. ITA No. 90/2011 (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and Hon ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of fact that persons managing affairs of firm are not in trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? D.B. ITA No. 125/2011 (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (4 of 5) [ ITA-367/2011] (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and Hon ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of fact that persons managing affairs of firm are not in trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? D.B. ITA No. 566/2011 (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in not taking cognizance of inquiries conducted by CBDT/DRI/Customs authorities which clearly indicate that export sales were not genuine? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT has acted illegally and perversely in law and Hon ble ITAT was justified in not sustaining addition made u/s 69C of Act on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that claimed purchases were proved to be bogus solely on basis that since export was there corresponding purchases must be there and not taking judicial notice of fact that persons managing affairs of firm are not in trade of Gem & Jewellery and Garments but in trade of manufacturing of ceramic waves? order dated 15th February, 2017 passed by this Court reads as under:- In view of amendment applications, question No. 2 which has been referred by Court is deleted as prayed for. All applications are allowed. In our considered opinion, view taken by Tribunal is just and proper. question which has been raised have not been argued before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (5 of 5) [ ITA-367/2011] It will be open for appropriate authority under relevant act to take action regarding question no.1, if it is permissible. This will not be required to consider under Income Tax Act. appeals stand dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. A.Sharma/68-72 Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-ii, Jaipur v. B. A. International
Report Error