SMT. VANDANA JAIN, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 458/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5364 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: H M SINGHVI

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 FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 458/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. VANDANA JAIN PROP. M/S. TUSHAR HAND WORKS, 11, GANGWAL PARK, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE- 5 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ACAPJ 1433 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.M. SINGHVI, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01/02/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 /03/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) II, JAIPUR DATED 09-03-2015 RAISING THEREIN GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 27,32,657/- BY APPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 31% ES TIMATED BY THE AO. 2. THAT NO COMPARATIVE CASE WAS GIVEN BY AO. ITA NO. 458/JP/2015 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN NOT APPRECIATING THE WORKING OF COST AND G.P. FOR 4 DIF FERENT ITEMS GIVEN TO AO AND TO LD. CIT(A). 2.1 AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER DATED 18-12-2015 OF THIS BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 713 AND 714/JP/2013 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY T HIS BENCH ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS THE FACTS EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% EXPORTER OF THE READYMADE GARMEN TS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE DULY AUDITED AND SUPPORTED BY RECORD S. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS, EXPENDITU RE AND STOCK MAINTENANCE, COMPARATIVE STOCK INVENTORY PREPARED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON THE RECORD AND LOWER AUTHORITI ES HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK AND ITEMS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED IN SUCH CASUAL MANNER A ND SUMMARY MANNER. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MAINTENANCE OF DAY TODAY PRODUCTION S TOCK IN THE READYMADE GARMENTS TRADE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE. ADVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN ABOUT THE EXPENSE S UNDER THE HEAD STITCHING, EMBROIDERY, DYING AND PRINTING BEIN G HIGH HAVE NEITHER BEEN JUSTIFIED LD AO NOR ANY DISPROPORTIONA TENESS IN COMPARATIVE FIGURE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. THUS IN O UR VIEW, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. OUR VIEWS ARE FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. (I) CIT V SUPERIOR CRAFTS, 353 ITR 101 AND POONA RAM 326 ITR 223 (DEL.) ITA NO. 458/JP/2015 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 3 (II) PANDIT BROTHERS 26 ITR 159 ((P&H) (II) CIT VS. JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS,324 ITR 95 (DEL.) IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REJECTED. BESIDES, IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08, SUBSTANTIAL GROSS PROFIT ADDITION WAS REDU CED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE TO A MEAGER FIGURE. THE REASON FOR FALL IN ASSESSEE'S GROSS PROFIT CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS A STIFF COMPETITION IN THE GLOBAL MARKET AND IT IS A BUYER MARKET WHICH CANNOT BE DISPUTED. IN VIEW OF THESE DELIBERA TIONS, WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ANY GROSS PROFIT ADD ITION. THUS WE DO NOT ENDORSE THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ESTIMATION OF ANY GROS S PROFIT ADDITION. THE GROUND RAISE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE AS SESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 2.2 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 18- 12-2015. IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH ( SUPRA), THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 458/JP/2015 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 4 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/03/20 16. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 16 /03/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. VANDANA JAIN, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, , JAIPUR . 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.458/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR