PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 1015/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2119 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1015/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08. M/S. PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION, C-49, SAROJINI MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AABFP 3798 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (NOTICE ISSUED ON 21.7.2017 BY REGD. A.D/SPEED POST. JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. CHANDEL (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23.08.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/08/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 22.08.016 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE AO WAS LEGALLY RIGHT IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF IT ACT, 1961 WHICH AS PER ASSESSEE IS BA D IN LAW AND BEYOND JURISDICTION. 2 ITA NO. 1015/JP/2016 M/S. PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO OF REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) AND MAKING TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 17,44,980 /- BEING EQUIVALENT TO 25% OF ALLEGED UNVERIFIABLE/BOGUS PURCHASES OF R S. 69,79,920/- FROM 2 SUPPLIER PARTIES WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASS ESSEE WITH THE FRESH MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION AND WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT AND CROSS EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE US ED AGAINST HIM AND AT HIS BACK IN MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN FACT AND I N LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTIONS OF THE AO WHICH WAS BASED ON UNCONCLUDED PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF A THIRD PARTY (SUPPLIERS) RE LYING ON A STATEMENT RECORDED ALLEGEDLY UNDER COERCION AND THREAT AND WH ICH STATEMENT ALSO DID NOT CARRY THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE WI TH REFERENCE TO ANY TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BETWEEN SUCH PARTY AND THE A SSESSEE AND FURTHERMORE WHEN SUCH PARTY, ON WHOSE STATEMENT THE AO IN THIS CASE TAKING ADVERSE ACTION, HAS RETRACTED SUCH STATEMENT ON OATH AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHOSE CASE, RELIED UPON BY THE AO RE MAINING UNCONCLUDED UPTO THE TIME OF SUCH ACTION OF REASSES SMENT BY THE AO IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER AND/OR A MEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS SUBMITTED. ON PREVIO US DATE I.E. ON 03.05.2017 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.06.2017. ON 06.06.2017 THE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 14.07.2017 AND EVEN AFT ER NOTING THE DATE OF HEARING, NO ONE ATTENDED THE HEARING. FINALLY THE CASE WAS F IXED FOR HEARING ON 23.08.2017 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED / SPEED POST AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THIS DAY NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE REMAINED PRESENT NOR ANY APPLICATION IS FILED. THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PUR SUING ITS APPEAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENC H OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND ALS O ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE 3 ITA NO. 1015/JP/2016 M/S. PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION. M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHO JI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/08/201 7. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO DQY HKKJR (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24/08/2017. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-M/S. PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION, JAI PUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 6(5), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1015/JP/2016} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR