ITO, Jaipur V. SMT BHARTI MALPANI, Jaipur

ITA 377/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 37723114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL CHOPRA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 377/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR CUKE VS. BHARTI MALPANI, 11-FILM COLONY, SMS HIGHWAY, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADGPM 6495 G VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT IZR;K{KSI.K @ C.O. NO. 28/JP/2013 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 377/JP/2013) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 BHARTI MALPANI, 11-FILM COLONY, SMS HIGHWAY, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA- @ PAN/GIR NO.: ADGPM 6495 G IZR;K{KSID @ OBJECTOR IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH MANGAL (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL CHOPRA (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/07/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/08/2015 ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 2 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESS EE ARISES FROM THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARN ED CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE GROUND OF REVENUES APP EAL AND GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES C.O. ARE AS UNDER:- GROUND IN REVENUES APPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR IS JUSTIFIED IN:- I) GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 10,37,461/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. II) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 68,081/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF AD-HOC EXPENSES MADE BY THE A.O. GROUND IN ASSESSEES C.O. 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR WENT WRONG IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 5,71,521/- OUT OF RS. 16,08 ,982/- BY TAKING G.P. RATE OF 13.00% ON SALES OF RS. 3,45,82,025/- AS AGAINST 11.34% (AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,24,685/-) DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME FROM RENT AND EXPO RT OF SILVER, GEMS AND JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 29/09/2008 AT RS. 1,18,340/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 3 REFERRED AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TH E ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE PARTICULAR OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WER E MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON VERIFICATION OF TH E INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE MOSTLY PURCHASES FROM TWO PARTIES NAMELY M/S BALAJI TRADERS, 14, JAGDAMBA COLONY, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR AND PURCHASE AMOUNT WAS RS. 36,13,125/- AND M/S HANDICR AFT ENTERPRISES, NAVRATAN COMPLEX, KGB KA RASTA, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPU R AND PURCHASE AMOUNT WAS RS. 79,84,753/-. THIS WAS 84.91% OF TOTAL P URCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIR ECTED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION ALONGWITH BOOKS OF AC COUNT VIDE ORDERSHEET ENTRY DATED 22/09/2010 BUT THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED ON 19/10/2010 THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAD CLOSED THEIR B USINESS AND WERE NOT INTERESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY WITH THE ASSESSEE TO ENFORCE THE ATT ENDANCE OF THESE PARTIES. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE BCTT WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAD INVESTIGATED THAT THESE PA RTIES WERE PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES ON COMMISSION BASIS. THESE PARTIES WERE FIGURED IN THE LIST OF BOGUS ENTRY PROVIDERS AS PER LIST PREPARED BY THE BCTT WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. THERE WA S A SURVEY IN ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 4 THE CASE OF M/S HANDICRAFTS ENTERPRISES ON 12/3/200 8. PROPRIETOR OF M/S HANDICRAFTS ENTERPRISES NAMELY SHRI LALIT GUPTA HAD ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED BOGUS BILLS TO M/S BHARTI EXPORT, 11 FILM COLONY, JAIPUR (PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF ASSESSEE) BY CHARGING 4% CO MMISSION ON BOGUS BILL AMOUNT. BOTH THE CONCERNS WERE NOT DOING ANY GE MS JEWELLERY BUSINESS IN REALITY BUT WERE PROVIDING THE BOGUS BIL LS TO INFLATE THE COST OF PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE TH ESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD AS SESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND WARD INSPECTOR WAS DIRECTED TO SERVE NOTICE AND COLLECTED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION FROM THEM BUT THE INSPECTOR SUBMITTED HIS REPORT ON 3/12/2010 AND INF ORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO INSTITUTION AT T HE GIVEN ADDRESS ON THE ABOVE NAME. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN GAVE REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN NARRA TED ON PAGE 4-5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY, HE APPLIED SE CTION 145(3) OF THE ACT ON BOOK RESULT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT MAINTAI NED STOCK REGISTER, THUS, OPENING, CLOSING, PURCHASE AND SALE S ARE NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. THE CLOSING STOCK MAINLY PREPARED AT T HE END OF THE YEAR HAD BEEN DESTROYED. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 5 (I) RAINBOW METALS (INDIA) (1995) 83 TAXMAN 160, 166 . (II) JCIT VS. KANCHWALA GEMS (2007) 288 ITR 10. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED G.P. RATE @ 16% AGAINST TH E G.P. RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE @ 4.66%. ACCORDINGLY, HE MA DE ADDITION OF RS. 16,08,982/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WH O HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. IT IS A FACT THAT PURCHASES FROM M/S BALAJI TRADERS AND M/S HANDICRAFTS COLONY COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AND TO THAT EXTENT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF GETTING THE PURCHASES VERIFIED. THE HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD IN THE CASES OF GEMS AND JEWELLERY TRADERS OF JAIPUR THAT UN-VERIFIABILITY OF PURCHASES ARE SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 145(3). THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE A.O. TO REJECT THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) IS UPHELD. REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME, IT HAS CONSISTE NTLY BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH THAT THE PAST HISTORY OF ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 6 THE CASE IS THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING THE G.P. RATE OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CASES. IN A.Y. 2007-08 THE HONBLE ITAT BENCH JAIPUR HAD CONFIRMED A GP RATE OF RS. 7.5% ON TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 4,49,53,113.78/- IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THIS A.Y. THE TURNOVER HAS DECLINED TO RS. 3,45,82,024.64/-. IT IS A WELL ACCEPTED FACT THAT TH E G.P. RATE IMPROVES WITH THE DECLINE IN TURNOVER. MOREOVER TO C OVER THE LOSS OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES THE G P RATE IS ESTIMATED AT 13%. THUS A TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 5, 71,521/- IS CONFIRMED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND ASSESSEE IS IN C .O. BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED AS UNDER:- 1. THE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS HONBLE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E IN ITA NO. 556/JP/2009 AND C.P. 115/JP/2009 FOR A.Y. 2006- 07. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE DECLARED G.P. RATE OF 7.26% WHICH WAS ENHANCED TO 12% IN ASSESSMENT. CIT(A) REDUCED IT TO 8.75% WHICH WAS FINALLY FIXED AT 7.5% BY THIS HONBL E ITAT BENCH. COPY OF REPLY DATED 09/8/2010 SHOWING G.P. AN D N.P. CHART IS GIVEN ON FROM PAGE NO. 22 OF PAPER BOOK. F URTHER COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND REPLY FILED ON 13/12/2 010 IS APPEARING FROM PAGE NO. 15 OF PAPER BOOK. COPY OF R EPLY FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IS FROM PAGE NO. 1 TO 5 OF PAPER BOOK. ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 7 2. FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMIL AR WITH THAT OF THE A.Y. 2006-07AND THE ALLEGED BOGUS PARTY IS SAME WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE TRANSACTED IN PRECEDING YEAR AS WEL L. (COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BENCH IS FROM PAGE NO. 6 TO 14 IN PAPER BOOK. 3. JUSTIFICATION OF GROSS PROFIT RATE:- THIS YEAR GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 11.34% IS DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN COMPARISON TO 7.45% DECLARED IN PREVIOU S YEAR. 4. THE TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS 345.82 LACS AS AGAINST RS. 449.43 LACS IN PREVIOUS YEAR. THE TUR NOVER IS 100% EXPORT TURNOVER. DESPITE OF A DECLINE OF ALMOS T 25% IN TURNOVER THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BETTER TRADING RESUL TS. AS SUCH IT WAS URGED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE REJECTED BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3 ). 5. FURTHER SUBMITTED HUMBLY THAT AS THE DECLARED TR ADING RESULTS ARE BETTER THAN THE TRADING RESULTS OF LAST YEAR AS SUCH THE DECISION OF HONBLE JAIPUR BENCH OF ITAT IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOLLOWING CIT VS. GOTAN LIME KHANIJ UDHYOG (2002) 256 ITR 243 (RAJ.) NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED. 6. EVEN OTHERWISE THE G.P. RATE OF 11.34% SHOWN IN TH E CURRENT YEARS WAS BETTER THAN THE G.P. RATE OF 7.45% SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL AS 7.26% SHOWN IN T HE ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 8 YEAR BEFORE. AS HELD IN VARIOUS COURTS THE PAST HIS TORY OF THE CASE IS BEST GUIDING FACTOR IN MAKING COMPARISON. 7. THE COMPARISON WITH THE PARTIES DEALING IN SAME TR ADE HAS NOT BEEN QUOTED BY THE LD A.O. AS SUCH NOT ACCEPTAB LE FURTHER THE NET PROFIT OF THE FIRM DEPENDS UPON MAN Y FACTORS LIKE LOCATION, NATURE AND FACTS OF BUSINESS, TYPE O F BUYERS AND SELLERS ETC. THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON THE SAME BASIS IN WHICH LAST YEARS ACCOUNTS WERE REJECT ED. 8. THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCREASED WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM FOLLOWING CHART:- FINANCIAL YEAR SALES (RS) NET PROFIT NP RATE (%) 2007-08 34582025 1263790 3.65% 2006-07 44953113 736217 1.64% 2005-06 89005491 1005479 1.12% 2004-05 89069773 1027726 1.15% 9. COMPLETE DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED BEFORE THE LD A .O. REGARDING VERIFICATION OF PURCHASES:- THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE AVAILABLE PHOTO COPY OF INVOICES CONTAINING SALES T AX REGISTRATION NUMBER (TIN), CONFIRMED STATEMENT OF AC COUNT IN ORIGINAL MENTIONING PERMANENT NUMBER UNDER INCOM E TAX ACT (PAN). BILLS ARE DULY SIGNED BY PARTIES AND CON TAINED FULL QUANTITY DETAILS. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM TIME TO TIME THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE QUANTITY PURCHASED HAVE BEEN EXPORTED FROM TIME TO TIME. THER E IS NO LOCAL SALE. AS SUCH THE PURCHASES OF THE FIRM NE ED BE ACCEPTED AS IT IS. ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 9 10. FURTHER RELIANCE CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAOCOCK POWE R LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED AT 131 TAXMAN 86 WHEREIN THE HONBL E ITAT HAS HELD THAT WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE MATERIAL, ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE A.O. NO ADVERSE INFE RENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 11. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE REQUEST THAT IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PARTICULARLY CONSIDER ING THE PREVIOUS HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS REQUESTED TH AT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE REJECTED AS TH EY REFLECTED TRUE AND CORRECT VIEW OF THE STATE OF AFFA IRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THIS B ENCH HAS ALREADY DECIDED IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANUJ KU MAR VARSHNEY VS. ITO & OTHERS GEMS AND JEWELLERY CASES IN I.T.A. NO. 187/ JP/2012 & OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 22/10/2014 WHEREIN DETAILED FINDIN GS ARE GIVEN ON BOGUS PURCHASES. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR OWN DECISION THE ABOVE CASE ON SAME IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, WE APPLY 15% N.P. ON BOGUS PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT IS CLARIFIED THAT BY APPLYING 15% N.P., THE ADDITION IS WORKED OU T AT RS. ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 10 17,39,682/-. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO ENHA NCE THE ADDITION UNDER THE LAW, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 16,08,982/-. ACCORDINGL Y, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON THIS G ROUND. 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAI NST DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 68,081/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AD H OC ADDITION. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD GENERAL EXPENSES, PACKING AND FORWARD ING EXPENSES, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES IN TOTAL RS. 1,41,5 87/- AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES, PETROL EXPENSES, CAR INSURANCE AND DEPREC IATION EXPENSES AT RS. 1,98,822/-. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED E XPENSES @ 20% OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO PROPER BILL VOUCHERS WERE MAINTAINED. PAYMENTS WERE M ADE IN CASH, SELF MADE VOUCHERS, WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICA TION AND ALSO PERSONAL USE OF CAR. THUS, HE MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 68,081/-. 7. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS NO T BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE OR FINDING THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 11 UNDER THESE HEADS WERE BOGUS, INFLATED OR WERE FOR NO N BUSINESS PURPOSE. MOREOVER DEPRECIATION IS A STATUT ORY ALLOWANCE AS PER THE FINDING OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRIVENI PHARMA. GIVEN THE NATURE OF PETTY EXPENDI TURE UNDER THESE HEADS, IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THE PA YMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH, THEREFORE, AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% ON THESE EXPENSES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 68,081/- IS DELETED. 8. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND REITERATED THE FINDING MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS AS SESSMENT ORDER. 9. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRIVENI PH ARMA HAD DELETED THE AD HOC ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REASONAB LE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELIED ON THE DECI SION IN CASE OF LAL CHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VS. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC ) AND HARISH KUMAR VS DCIT (2003) 85 ITD 366 (HYD-TRIB) AND PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ADDITI ON UNDER THE HEAD BOGUS PURCHASES HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THIS BENCH AND THE LD ITA 377/JP/2013 & CO 28/JP/2013_ ITO VS. BHARTI MALPANI 12 DR HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A ). THE DEPRECIATION IS A STATUTORY DEDUCTION, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE O RDER OF THE LD CIT(A). ON THIS GROUND, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWE D AND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/08/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 11 TH AUGUST, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SMT. BHARTI MALPANI, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 377/JP/2013 & C.O. 28/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR