ITO, Jaipur V. DHANDIA GEMS CORP., Jaipur

ITA 603/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 60323114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH SHARMA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

1 ITA 603(2)-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 603/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. DHANDIA GEMS C ORPORATION, WARD 2(1), 3958, KGB KA RASTA, JAIPUR. JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 22/JP/2011 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 603/JP/2010 ) ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. M/S. DHANDIA GEMS CORPORATION, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 605/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. DHANDIA EXPORT S, WARD 2(1), 3958, KGB KA RASTA, JAIPUR. JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 21/JP/2011 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 605/JP/2010 ) ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. M/S. DHANDIA EXPORTS, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATISH SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEY A 2 ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 10/06/2011. PER BENCH : THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY DEPARTMENT AND TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSES AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN CASE OF BOTH THESE ASSESSES , THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER. 3. IN THE CASE OF M/S. DHANDIA GEMS CORPORATION, TH E DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN RESTRICTING THE TRADING ADDITION TO RS. 50,000/- MA DE BY AO AT RS. 1,08,89,490/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES AND ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P. RATE DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. 4. SIMILARLY, IN CASE OF M/S. DHANDIA EXPORTS, THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN RESTRICTING THE TRADING ADDITION TO RS. 50,000/- AG AINST ADDITION OF RS. 15,87,411/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES. 5. THE ASSESSEES THROUGH THEIR CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE OBJECTING IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- AND CONFIRMING THE REJECTI ON OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 6. BOTH THESE ASSESSES DEALS IN PRECIOUS AND SEMI P RECIOUS STONES AND JEWELLERY. IN CASE OF M/S. DHANDIA GEMS CORPORATION, ON THE SALES OF RS. 5,01,51,531/- THE ASSESSEE DECLARED G.P. RATE OF 5.19% AGAINST G.P. RATE OF 5. 73% DECLARED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT PURCHASE S OF RS. 4,32,75,505/- MADE FROM 7 PARTIES OF SURAT AND PURCHASES OF RS. 2,82,454/- FR OM TWO PARTIES OF JAIPUR REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, HE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI KRISHAN MALPANI, 32 TAX WORLD 122 AS WELL THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF KACHWALA GEMS VS. JCIT, 288 ITR 10 (SC). TO HELD THE PURCHASES N ON GENUINE, THE AO CONDUCTED 3 ENQUIRIES. SUMMONS ISSUED WERE RECEIVED BACK. ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REPORT IN CASES OF RAVI HALIDIA GROUP AND SURVEY CONDUCTED BY BCTT WIN G OF THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS FOUND THAT FOR ISSUING BOGUS BILLS THESE PERSONS WE RE CHARGING COMMISSION RANGING FROM 0.20% TO 0.25% OF THE QUANTUM. THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY AO WERE RETURNED BACK. THEREAFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN CAS E OF INDIAN WOOLEN CARPET FACTORY VS. ITAT & OTHERS, 178 CTR 420 AND IN CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD., 208 ITR 465, THE AO HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT PROPER. ACCORDINGLY THEY WERE REJECTED. BEFORE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMAT ION OF PURCHASES ALONG WITH SALES TAX NUMBER AND PAN NUMBER OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THEREAFTER , AO DISALLOWED 25% OF THE PURCHASES MADE WHICH REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M/S. SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES, 10 DTR 153 AND IN CASE OF M/S. VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. (ITAT AHMEDABAD), 58 IT D 425. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MERELY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR OF ADIT AT SURAT. THE AO NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO P RODUCE 7 PARTIES OF SURAT AT ANY TIME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFO RE, TO THAT EXTENT AOS OBSERVATIONS ARE WRONG. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE 2 PARTIES OF JAIPUR ONLY. COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ALSO FILED. HO WEVER, ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE. COPIES OF PUR CHASE BILLS WERE ALSO FILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BILLS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACC EPTED. REGARDING SURAT PARTIES, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THESE PARTIES HAVE NOT CARRI ED OUT BUSINESS FROM SURAT, AS THEY HAVE THEIR OFFICES IN MUMBAI, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION TO DO BUSINESS AT MUMBAI. NO ENQUIRY WAS 4 MADE AT MUMBAI ADDRESS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SURAT PARTIES HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR EXISTENCE BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES THOUGH IN OTHER CASES. THEREFORE, EXISTENCE OF THESE PARTIES CANNOT BE DENIED. REQUIRED DETAIL S WERE FILED. THE RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASE AND SALES WERE ALSO FILED. REGARDING THE DECISION OF M/S. SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES AND M/S. VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. (SUPRA), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE CASES WERE FOUND DISTINGUISHABLE BY THE JAIPUR BENCH IN CASE O F M/S. GEMS PARADISE. FURTHER, DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF ANY ADDITION CAN BE MADE, IT CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTORY A ND PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE IS BETTER. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE MADE. THE L D. CIT (A) SENT THE DETAILS ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO THE FILE OF AO FOR HIS COMME NTS. REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS RECEIVED ON 24.11.2009. THE AO MENTIONED THAT QUAL ITY-WISE DETAILS IS THE MAIN FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE CORRECT PRICE OF THE ITEM. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING STOCK REGISTER ON THE BASIS OF WEIGHT OF STONE WHICH IS IN LOTS. IN A PARTICULAR LOT, THE QUALITY MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR EACH STONE AND, THEREFORE, AN AVERAGE RATE CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR A WHOLE LOT. THE TWO STONES OF SAME WEIGHT MAY HAVE RATE DIFFERE NCE IN MANY MULTIPLES. REGARDING PURCHASES FROM SURAT PARTIES, THE AO AGAIN RELIED O N THE ADIT SURATS REPORT AND OBSERVED THAT THESE PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND AT THE G IVEN ADDRESS. THEREAFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) GAVE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RECORDED AT PAGES 8 TO 10 OF HIS ORDER :- CONTENTION OF THE AR IS CONSIDERED. THE APPELLAN T HAS MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER GIVING QUANTITY IN LOTS. THE AO FAILED TO FIND OUT ANY DEFECT IN MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER EXCEPT THAT QUALITY WISE STOCK REGISTER WAS NOT MAINTAINED. IN HIS REMAND REPORT T HE AO HAS STATED THAT EVEN IN ONE LOT THERE ARE DIFFERENT QUALITY OF STON ES AND EVEN TWO STONES OF SAME RATE MAY HAVE RATE DIFFERENCE IN MANY MULTIPLE S. WHEN THE PURCHASES 5 ARE MADE IN LOTS AND IN PURCHASE BILLS ONLY LOTS AR E MENTIONED AND PRECIOUS STONES ARE ALSO SOLD IN LOTS, THE STOCK REGISTER MA INTAINED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT. WHEN THE AO ALSO ADMITS THAT EACH STONE WILL VARY IN QUALITY THEN QUALITY WISE STOCK REGISTER CAN BE MAINTAINED ONLY IF EACH PIECE OF STONE IS RECORDED SEPARATELY WHICH PERHAPS WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE. FURTHER AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT HOW HE WAS UNABLE TO DEDUCE CORRECT PROFIT WITH THE HELP OF STOCK REGISTER AND QUANTITA TIVE DETAILS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. NO OTHER CASE WAS MENTIONED WHEREIN ANY ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SUCH TYPE OF QUALITY WISE STOCK REGISTER . ON THIS ACCOUNT APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) CANNOT BE UPHELD. FURTHER CLOSING STOCK VALUATION HAS BEEN DONE SINCE PAST AS PER ACC OUNTING STANDARD AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEVIATED FROM THE PROCEDURE F OLLOWED. ON ACCOUNT OF NON VERIFICATION OF CLOSING STOCK THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED AS THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IS CONS ISTENT AND NOT FAULTY. REGARDING PURCHASES FROM SURAT PARTIES THE AO HAS N OT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY EXCEPT ISSUING COMMISSION TO TH E ADIT SURAT. BASED ON THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR OF ADIT SURAT, THE AO CO NSIDERED SURAT PARTIES NON EXIST IGNORING THE FACT THAT ALL THOSE CONCERNS ARE FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME SHOWING CONSIDERABLE INCOME THE AO HAS NOT C ONTROVERTED THE ASSERTION OF THE AR THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FILE D BY SURAT PARTIES AND THEY ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIE S OF SURAT. THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER ASKED BY THE AO TO PRODUCE SURA T PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. AS ADMITTED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND R EPORT ONLY BY ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 18/12/08 THE APPELLANT WAS IN FORMED ABOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED ON 29 /12/08 AND BEFORE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO REPLY THE SHOW CAUSE ON 22/12/08 THOUGH THE SHOW CAUSE WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ONLY ON 19 /12/08 AND NEXT TWO DAYS WERE HOLIDAYS. NOT ONLY THE APPELLANT WAS NEV ER ASKED SPECIFICALLY TO PRODUCE THE SURAT PARTIES BUT NO PROPER OPPORTUN ITY WAS GIVEN TO REPLY THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE FINALIZING THE ASSESSM ENTS ORDER. IT IS NOT THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED TO THE SU RAT PARTIES WERE 6 ENCASHED IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEPOSITING IN THEIR BANK A/C. THE COPY OF THEIR BANK A/C ALSO REVEAL VARIOUS OTHER TRANSACTIONS WHI CH PROVE THAT THOSE CONCERNS WERE IN ACTUAL BUSINESS. AGAIN IT IS NOT T HE CASE OF THE AO THAT SUMMONS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE SURAT PARTIES REMAINED UNSERVED. THE AOS ADMISSION THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO 2 OUT OF 7 PARTIES ERE RETURNED UNSERVED ALSO INDIRECTLY PROVES THAT AT LEAST IN TH E REMAINING 5 CASES THE NOTICES WERE SERVED. AS THE GENUINENESS AND EXISTEN CE OF THE SURAT PARTIES COULD NOT BE PROVED WRONG CONCLUSIVELY, PURCHASES M ADE FROM 7 SURAT PARTIES WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY OTHER EVIDENCES CANN OT BE HELD AS NON GENUINE. ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO THE REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED. REGARDING PURCHASE OF RS. 282454/- FROM M/S AUM JEW ELLERS AND M/S ANIL EXPORTS JAIPUR SUMMONS WERE ISSUED U/S 131 BUT THE PARTIES DID NOT APPEAR. THERE ARE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION CAR RIED OUT BY THE DEPTT. IN THOSE CASES AND SOME OTHER RELATED CASES WHERE I T WAS ESTABLISHED THAT M/S AUM JEWELERS AND M/S ANIL EXPORTS WERE NOT TRAC EABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE AO DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR WHO HAS REP ORTED THAT THESE CONCERNS WERE PHYSICALLY NOT EXISTING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THUS, THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO HAS ESTABLISHED THE FAC T THAT THESE TWO JAIPUR CONCERNS ARE NOT ACTUALLY DOING ANY BUSINESS. THE A PPELLANT ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS BUT COULD GET THE PAN AND TIN NO. ONLY FROM THE WEBSITE FROM SALES TAX DEPTT. THUS, T HE PURCHASES OF RS. 282454/- REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE. AS HELD BY HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI KRISHAN MALPANI UNVERIFIABLE PU RCHASES IS A DEFECT IN MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) ON UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES OF RS. 282454/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. AFTER REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ONLY COURSE O F ACTION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IS TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROF IT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION @ 25% OF THE ALLEGED UNVER IFIABLE PURCHASES. FRO THIS THE AO HAS MAINLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT 7 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE IND. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY P ROTEINS LTD. (SUPRA). THE AR HAS POINTED OUT THE DISTINCTION BET WEEN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS NOT HELD THAT THE ALLEGED UNVERIFIABLE P URCHASES WERE INFLATED BY 25%. THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY COMPARISON OF PURCH ASE PRICE PAID WITH THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. THE AO HAS ALSO NO T ESTABLISHED THAT PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUE HAS COME BAC K TO THE APPELLANT BY WITHDRAWING THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT IN CASH FROM T HE SUPPLIERS BANK A/C. THUS THE FACTS ARE NOT COMPARABLE. AT THE SAME TIME THE HONBLE GUJARAT HC IN THE VERY SAME DECISION OF SANJAY OIL CAKE IND . HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT WHETHER THE ESTIMATION SHOULD BE AT A PARTICUL AR SUM OR AT A DIFFERENT SUM CAN NEVER BE AN ISSUE OF LAW. THE COURT HAS NOT LAID DOWN ANY LAW THAT IN SUCH TYPE OF CASES DISALLOWANCES SHOULD BE MADE @25% OF ALLEGED UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASE., THE APPELLANT HAS SUCCESSFU LLY ESTABLISHED THE LINK OF EXPORT WITH THE PURCHASES. FROM THE G.P CHART OF EARLIER YEARS ONE CAN SEE THAT THE G.P. RATE DECLARED ARE COMPARABLE. IN ANY CASE FOR VERIFIABLE PURCHASE OF RS. 282454/- ADDITION OF RS. 10889490/- CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. EXCEPT UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASE OF RS. 282454/- THERE IS NO OTHER DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION G.P. RATE DECLARED IS 5.19% WHICH IS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN 5.73% G.P. RATE OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. HOWEVER, TURNOVER HAS INCREASES FROM RS. 3.72 CR TO 5.01 CR IN THIS YEAR AND THEREFORE, TO S OME EXTENT FALL IN G.P. RATE REMAINS EXPLAINED. AT THE SAME TIME A LUMPSUM DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/- IS CONFIRMED TO PLUG ANY LOOP HOLE OR LOSS OF REVENUE DUE TO UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1088949 0/- IS THEREFORE, REDUCED TO RS. 50,000/-. THUS, THOUGH THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 8 7. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD. D/R FIRST PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER O F AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BY TAKING BILLS ONLY THE ASSESSEE MANIPULATES ITS PURC HASE PRICE TO AVOID THE TAX LIABILITY. MOST OF THE PURCHASES REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE AND, TH EREFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING 25% OF PURCHASES AND ADDING THE SAME TO THE INCOME. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE P LACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WERE REITERATED. THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SURAT PARTIES WERE EXPLAINED AND IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT ALL THESE SURAT PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES AT SUR AT AND, THEREFORE, EXISTENCE OF THESE PARTIES CANNOT BE DENIED. FURTHER, PORTION OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) WAS READ ALSO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONLY RS. 2,00,000/- OR O DD PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM JAIPUR PARTIES REMAINED UNVERIFIED. THEREFORE, THE LD. CI T (A) HAS ALREADY SUSTAINED AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- WHICH IS REASONABLE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERI AL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GI VEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT SURAT PARTIES ARE IN EXISTENCE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT T O THAT EXTENT CANNOT BE REJECTED. HOWEVER, CERTAIN PURCHASES REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE, T HEREFORE, ON THIS ACCOUNT LD. CIT (A) HAS SUSTAINED AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/-. THE FIN DING OF LD. CIT (A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED SOMEWHERE ABOVE IN THIS ORDER IS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ARE FINDING OF FACT WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY WITHOUT GOING FURTHER IN DETAIL, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IN THIS CASE. 9 11. SIMILAR FACTS ARE INVOLVED IN CASE OF OTHER ASS ESSEE I.E. M/S. DHANDIA EXPORTS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS APPEAL ALSO IN SIM ILAR FASHION AND, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAME REASON, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- AS CERTAIN PURCHASES REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE . ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE CONFIRMED IN BOTH THE CASES. 12. CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY ASSESSES WERE NOT PRE SSED, THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND TH E CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSES ARE DISMISSED. 14. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 .6.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR. M/S. DHANDIA GEMS CORPN., JAIPUR. M/S. DHANDIA EXPORTS, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 603(2)/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.