KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 469/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2146 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

+VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 469/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA, PROP.-M/S KAMAL DEEP JEWELLERS, H-123, SEZ-II, SITAPURA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACIPG 3420 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24/07/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/08/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 30/03/2015 FOR THE A. Y. 2010-11, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. AO OF NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 32,80,743/- ARBITRARILY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION MADE AND EVIDENCES ADDU CED THUS THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING UNJUST AND THERE FORE DESERVES ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 2 TO BE HOLD BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED T HE EXEMPTION U/S 10A AS CLAIMED. 1.2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORI NG THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY OF IN SEC. 10A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR CLAIMING EXEMP TION MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED MANUFACT URING ACTIVITY IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THUS THE EXEMPTI ON U/S 10A BEING LEGITIMATELY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DESERV ES TO BE ALLOWED. 1.3 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN OBSERV ING THAT NO NEW MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE MANUF ACTURING UNIT SITUATED IN SEZ AND THE EXPORT OF GOODS WAS IN CONTINUATION OF HIS EXISTING BUSINESS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE UNIT UNDER QUESTION WAS IN OPERATION DURING THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL AND MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT T HUS SUCH OBSERVATION DESERVES TO BE IGNORED AND EXCLUDED AND THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S 10A AS CLAIME D. 1.4 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT AL LOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 10A THOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAIN TAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS WERE ACCEPTED AND TH E TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS SUCH. 2. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 24/09/2010 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 56,466/-.THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURER AND EXP ORTER OF JEWELLERY. A NEW UNIT IS SITUATED AT SEZ-II, SITAPURA INDUSTRIA L AREA, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND DECLARED TURNOVER OF RS. 1.2 0 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S 10 A OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 3 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. WHI LE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY EMBEDDED WITH PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOUS ST ONES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENGAGED IN CUTTING, POLISHING AND EXP ORT OF SEMI-PRECIOUS AND PRECIOUS STONES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPT ION U/S 10A OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GRANTED ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AR O F THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOU S STONE IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S KAMALDEEP JEWELLERS AND THE BUSINES S WAS CARRIED OUT FROM 877, WHITE HOUSE, THIRD FLOOR, GANGA MATA KI GA LI, GOPAL JIKA RASTA, JAIPUR. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TH E ASSESSEE DISCONTINUED HIS TRADING BUSINESS AND STARTED A NEW BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY EMBEDDED WITH PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES IN SEZ. THE ASSESSEE ALSO START ED CUTTING, POLISHING AND EXPORTING OF PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES, UNDER THE SAME NAME OF M/S KAMALDEEP JEWELLERS OF WHICH THE MANUFACT URING UNIT AT H- 123, SEZ-2 SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR. THE ASS ESSEE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM EXPORT OF JEWELLERY AND PRECIOUS AND SEM I-PRECIOUS STONES SO MANUFACTURED IN HIS NEWLY ESTABLISHED MANUFACTURI NG UNIT SITUATED IN ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 4 SEZ AND EARNED PROFIT OF RS. 32,80,743/- ON THE EXP ORT SALES OF RS. 1,20,80,740/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 1 0A OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RIGHT A ND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE BILLS PERTAINING TO ENTIRE PURCHASES, SALES, AND ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS TO THE I.T. AUTH ORITIES. SINCE THIS WAS A NEW UNIT AND THE ASSESSEE GOT NECESSARY APPROVAL FRO M THE SEZ AUTHORITIES, FOR WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT I T IS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT AND DID NOT APPLY TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT MANUFACTURI NG ACTIVITIES. THE HOLDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD CARRIED OUT ONLY TRADING ACTIVITY, BY ONLY POLISHING THE READY JEWELL ERY FOR EXPORTS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED LAND FROM RICCO VIDE LEASE DEED DATED 02.02.2006 AND FURTHER APPROVAL WAS RECEIVED FROM DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER FOR MANUFACTURING OF EMBED DED JEWELLERY VIDE LETTER DATED MAY 2009. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED T HE SEZ AUTHORITIES REGARDING COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION AT ITS UNIT. THIS FACT ITSELF ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING BUSIN ESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SILVER AND GOLD JEWELLERY EMBEDDED WITH PRECIOUS A ND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES FROM ITS SEZ UNIT LOCATED IN SEZ AREA. THE OT HER ALLEGATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED FINISHED GOODS FROM ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 5 LOCAL PARTIES AND ONLY DID THE POLISHING BEFORE EXP ORTING, IS ALSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASE INVOICES PLACED IN PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED UNMOUNTED JEWEL LERY AND AFTER ADDING PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES, THE FINAL JEWELLERY MANUFACTURED WHICH HAD BEEN EXPORTED. FURTHER THE I NFORMATION GATHERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE BACK OF TH E ASSESSEE FROM THE SUPPLIER IN THE FORM OF RECORDING THE STATEMENTS, WA S NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED OPPO RTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SUPPLIERS. THEREFORE, SUCH OBSERVATION OR CONCLUSION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR MAKING ADDITION ARE UNJ USTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT SU CH BASELESS ALLEGATION AND ALSO TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SUPPLIERS. HE ALSO RE LIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CCE VS. AN DAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 2015 (324) ELT 641. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS LOST SIGHT TO THE FACT THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED WERE PLAIN UN-MOUNTED JEWELLERY, WHICH HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED IN BILL ITSELF. SUCH PURCHASES WER E NOTHING BUT RAW MATERIAL FOR THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS COMMONLY KNOWN A S GHAT IN THE BUSINESS PARLANCE. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED FI NISHED GOODS IS COMPLETELY BASELESS. THE ASSESSEE AFTER PURCHASING T HE GHAT EMBEDDED ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 6 THE PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES, WHICH ARE CUT AND POLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SEZ UNIT AND THEN SUCH FINISHED GOO DS WERE EXPORTED. THESE FACTS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE. AFT ER PROCUREMENT OF RAW MATERIAL (UN-MOUNTED CASTINGS OF METALS AND PRECIOU S AND SEMIPRECIOUS STONES IN ROUGH FORM) THESE ITEMS ARE STUDDED/EMBED DED BY CUT AND POLISHED PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES. ASSESSE E DID CUTTING AND POLISHING OF ROUGH PRECIOUS AND SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE S AND AFTER THAT THE POLISHING AND FINISHING OF STUDDED/ MOUNTED METAL C ASTINGS (FINISHED GOODS), THESE FINISHED GOODS ARE EXPORTED FROM THE SEZ UNIT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERA LA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIMAR INDUSTRIES VS. CIT [230 CTR 401) REFE RRING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GWALIOR RAYONS SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD [196 ITR 149], WHEREIN THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC 10A SHOULD BE CONST RUED REASONABLY AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT ALSO HELD THAT DEFINITION OF THE TERM MANUFACTURE FROM THE EXIM POLICY AND UPHELD THE PROCESS OF BLENDING AND PACKAGING OF TEA, AS AMOUNT ING TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF TH E ACT. THE OTHER ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FORMED UNIT FROM T HE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXPORT UNIT ALSO NOT BASED ON THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 7 A NEW PROPRIETORSHIP UNIT OPENED AT SEZ UNDER THE S AME NAME & STYLE OF M/S KAMAL DEEP JEWELLERS, THEREFORE, NO STOCK CARRY FORWARD FROM THE OLD FIRM, WHICH ITSELF FORTIFIED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE THAT UNIT STARTED AT SEZ WAS COMPLETELY A NEW UNIT AND IT WAS NOT OUT OF RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING UNIT. THE ENTRIES REGARDING RECOVERY/PAY MENT OF OLD DEBTORS AND CREDITORS WERE BASED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE CONCERNED WAS A PROPRIETORY CONCERNED, THERE FORE, NO TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BOOKS WERE MAINTAINED FOR B OTH THE FIRMS. THE HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF PORTESCAP INDIA P . LIMITED V. DCIT (ITA NO. 1015/MUM/2008) HAS HELD THAT THE MANUFACTURING OF A NEW PRODUCT WITH A NEW TECHNOLOGY AT AN EXISTING PLACE AF TER TAKING A FRESH APPROVAL FROM SEZ AUTHORITIES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO S PLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS FOR THE PUR POSE OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE ASSES SEE DESERVE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD SR. DR HAS RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MANUFACTURED ANY ITEM, ONLY GOODS PURCHASED WERE SOL D AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLIER S. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASING GOODS FROM THESE PERSONS, TH EREFORE, THERE WAS ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 8 NO REQUIREMENT OF OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAME WAS OF ANY HELP. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MACHINERY PURCH ASES WAS OF A SMALLER AMOUNT, THEREFORE, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO M ANUFACTURING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYED TO SUSTAIN T HE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THRO UGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE PAPER BOO K SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM EXPO RT OF JEWELLERY AND PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES SO MANUFACTURED I N HIS NEWLY ESTABLISHED MANUFACTURING UNIT SITUATED IN SEZ, JAI PUR. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THIS UNIT WAS NOT M ADE OUT OF ANY RECONSTRUCTION OF ANY OLD UNIT. THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRE D LAND FROM RIICO ON LEASE ON 02/2/2006 AND OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM DEVEL OPMENT COMMISSIONER FOR MANUFACTURING OF EMBEDDED JEWELLERY . THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, JAIPUR SEZ, SITAPURA, JAI PUR IN ITS LETTER NO. 2-77/SEZ-II(J)/PROJ-1549 DATED 21/12/2005 GRANTED P ERMISSION AND EXTENDED ALL THE FACILITIES AND PRIVILEGES ADMISSIB LE AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AS ENVISAGED IN SEZ SCHEME, 2004-2009 FO R THE ESTABLISHING NEW UNDERTAKING AT SEZ, SITAPURA, JAIPUR TO MANUFAC TURE OF SILVER ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 9 JEWELLERY PLAIN AND STUDDED, GOLD JEWELLERY PLAIN AND STUDDED, PLATINUM JEWELLERY, DIAMOND, PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONE S ETC. THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 78 TO 79 O F THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER THE CONDITION OF THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOT FOR ESTA BLISHING THE INDUSTRY AT SEZ, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, THE ASSESSEE TO EXPORT THE A SSESSEES PRODUCTS AND THE UNIT IS TO BE ACHIEVE POSITIVE NET FOREIGN EXCH ANGE EARNER EVERY YEAR. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM TERMS AND CONDITIONS NO. 6 OF R IICO ALLOTMENT LETTER, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 85 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PURCHASE BILLS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 37 TO 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHIC H SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED ROUGH SEMI PRECIOUS STONES L IKE EMERALD, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS AN INVOICE FROM EMINENET GEMS CO., 102, GURUKRIPA COMPLEX, 2581, TEL EPARA, CHAURA RASTA, JAIPUR DATED 08/5/2009. AT PAGE NO. 40 OF TH E PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS A PURCHASE BILL FROM SHREE RADHA GOVIND JEWELLERS , F-50, RADHA GOVIND COMPLEX, MANIRAM JI KI KOTHI KA RASTA, RAMGA NJ BAZAR, JAIPUR DATED 28/12/2009 IS FOR PURCHASE OF ROUGH TOURMALIN E. AT PAGE 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS A BILL OF SIDDHARTH INTERNATION AL, 877, 111RD FLOOR, WHITE HOUSE, GANGA MATA KI GALI, GOPAL JI KA RASTA, JAIPUR FOR PURCHASE OF SILVER CASTING MOUNTING DATED 09/12/2009. AT PAG E 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS A PURCHASE BILL OF GANESH IMPEX 890, G-T, J.K. ENCLAVE, GANGA MATA KI GALI, GOPAL JI KA RASTA, CHOURA RASTA , JAIPUR, WHICH ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 10 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED UNPOLISHED ITE MS LIKE TOURMALINE ROUND BOLL DRILL ETC. PAGE NO. 49 OF THE PAPER BOO K IS BILL FROM SIDDH CREATION, 1126, MISHRA RAJAJI KA RASTA, CHANDPOLE B AZAR, JAIPUR DATED 30/07/2009 FOR PURCHASE OF VICTORIAN UNMOUNTED JEWEL LERY. ALL THE NARRATIONS IN THE BILLS SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED UNCUT, UNPOLISHED PRECIOUS A ND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES AND ALSO UNMOUNTED SILVER AND GOLD JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOUNTED THE SEMI PRECIOUS AND PRECIOUS STONES IN TH E SILVER AND GOLD JEWELLERY AND THEN POLISHED AND MADE IT MARKETABLE, THEN EXPORTED THE SAME FROM THE SEZ UNIT, THUS, THE REVENUES CLAIM T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TRADING IN THE GOODS, IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT . THE STATEMENTS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE OF TWO OF THE SUPPLIERS NAMELY SHRI S HAKER AGARWAL, PROP.- M/S NARAIN DAS JAGGI LAL SARRAF HUD AND SHRI SAJJAN KUMAR, PROP.- M/S TULSI JEWELLERS WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO TH E ASSESSEE. NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THESE PERSONS WERE PROV IDED. FURTHER AS STATED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THE ORDER, THE PURCHASE BILLS OF TULSI JEWELLERS ITSELF MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED UN MOUNTED, UNPOLISHED JEWELERY, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NOS. 47 TO 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SALES BILL PLACED AT PAGE NO. 58 TO 71 ALSO SUGG EST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD CUT AND POLISHED SEMI PRECIOUS STONES, GOL D JEWELLERY SETTED WITH DIAMOND AND PRECIOUS STONES, SILVER JEWELLERY BE ADS WITH DIAMOND ITA 469/JP/2015_ KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS ACIT 11 AND CUT AND POLISHED SEMI PRECIOUS STONES. FURTHER THERE WAS NO CARRY FORWARD STOCK FROM ANY OLD FIRM, THE ENTIRE INPUT AN D OUT COMING STOCK WAS NEW, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS UNIT WAS OUT OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING UNIT. CONSIDERING AL L THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES FOR BENEFI T OF SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/08/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 01 ST AUGUST, 2017. *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPU R. 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. 469/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR