Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi v. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0803-16]

Citation 2017-LL-0803-16
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi
Respondent Name Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 03/08/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags individual capacity • question of law • monetary limit • bogus purchase • travelling and conveyance expenses • tax effect
Bot Summary: The first and foremost question sought to be raised in this appeal is:- Whether the purchases of rice bran by the respondent -assessee are bogus in nature under the facts and circumstances of the case. The submission of Shri Praveen Kumar learned counsel for the revenue is that it is a case of search and no bills and vouchers were found to prove the aforesaid purchases of the rice bran. The CIT on the basis of the material placed before him and on the basis of the statements of two persons namely- Vinay Singh and Rajesh Kumar Ramuka held that the rice bran was supplied by the aforesaid two persons in the name of their firms M/s. Om Sai Enterprises, M/s. Om Shiv Enterprises, M/s. Mahadev Enterprises and M/s. Nisha Enterprises and that the payments were received by them in the individual capacity as the bank accounts were in their names and in the name of one of the firm M/s. Nisha Enterprises. The Assessing Officer is not correct in holding that the aforesaid purchases were bogus inasmuch as the supplies were made by Party and payments were made to Party. The findings of CIT have been accepted by the tribunal and it has been held that the purchases are not bogus at all. The question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in accepting the purchases to be genuine and not bogus is a matter of fact only. The tax incidence in respect thereof is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- prescribed for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court as per CBDT's Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10the December, 2015 and as such it is not a case where any appeal on the other questions could be preferred by the department.


Court No. - 3 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 212 of 2017 Appellant :- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Varanasi Respondent :- M/S Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- R.P.Agrawal Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and Shri R.P. Agrawal learned counsel for respondent. This appeal has been preferred by revenue against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.02.2017. first and foremost question sought to be raised in this appeal is:- "Whether purchases of rice bran by respondent -assessee are bogus in nature under facts and circumstances of case." submission of Shri Praveen Kumar learned counsel for revenue is that it is case of search and no bills and vouchers were found to prove aforesaid purchases of rice bran. It was only at stage of appeal before CIT (Appeal) that documents/bills were produced relating to purchase of rice bran. CIT (Appeals) on basis of material placed before him and on basis of statements of two persons namely- Vinay Singh and Rajesh Kumar Ramuka held that rice bran was supplied by aforesaid two persons in name of their firms M/s. Om Sai Enterprises, M/s. Om Shiv Enterprises, M/s. Mahadev Enterprises and M/s. Nisha Enterprises and that payments were received by them in individual capacity as bank accounts were in their names and in name of one of firm M/s. Nisha Enterprises.The Assessing Officer is not correct in holding that aforesaid purchases were bogus inasmuch as supplies were made by Party (A) and payments were made to Party (B). In fact supply and payment were made to same parties but with different names. findings of CIT (A) have been accepted by tribunal and it has been held that purchases are not bogus at all. question whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in accepting purchases to be genuine and not bogus is matter of fact only. Thus, no question of law in this regard arises in this appeal. other questions proposed to be raised in this appeal are with regard to disallowance of travelling expenses etc. but tax incidence in respect thereof is less than monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- prescribed for filing appeal before Hon'ble High Court as per CBDT's Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10the December, 2015 and as such it is not case where any appeal on other questions could be preferred by department. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.8.2017 Sharad/- Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi v. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills Ltd
Report Error