Alka Jain , Jaipur vs Assessee

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. 798/JP/2011 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08

Alka Jain cuke The I.T.O., Prop. M/s Shiriya Arts, F-184, Vs. Ward-6(3), Jaipur. Panch Sheel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPJ 4547 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Adj. application rejected jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Neena Jeph (JCIT)

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 25/05/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/05/2015

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated

11/07/2011 passed by the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2007-08.

2 ITA 798/JP/2011_ Alka Jain Vs. ITO

In this appeal, various grounds have been raised, which in effect

challenged the trading addition of Rs. 18,94,013/- made by the

Assessing Officer against the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.

75,76,052/- by rejecting the books of account. It may be mentioned

that similar issue in respect of unverifiable purchases/bogus purchases

for precious and semi precious stones has been decided by this Bench

of ITAT in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. ITO & others

gems and jewellery cases in I.T.A. No. 187/JP/2012 & other ITAs order

dated 22/10/2014 wherein this Bench has decided as under:-

"We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. As discussed in above cases, the material available on record established that in Jaipur, a rampant practice is in vogue to get and issue accommodation bills of purchases to deflate the profit. The learned Assessing Officer made disallowance @ 25% of such bogus purchases on the basis of decision in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries and Vijay Protein Ltd. (supra). In our view the 25% disallowance appears to be higher side, therefore, keeping in view of the facts of the assessee's case as well as other cases as discussed above, we feel that 15% disallowance out of bogus purchases is reasonable on unverifiable purchases

3 ITA 798/JP/2011_ Alka Jain Vs. ITO

and will meet the ends of justice. The rejection of books of account is justified. The assessee gets relief partly."

2. It has been informed that both i.e. assessees and revenue are in

appeals before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court.

3. The ld counsel for the assessee has applied for adjournment on

the ground that these appeals are shortly listed for hearing before the

Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, therefore, adjournment may be granted.

4. We are not inclined to grant adjournment and inasmuch as

before the Hon'ble High Court, whether the question of law has been

admitted, stage of hearing and likelihood of time of decision has not

been explained to us. It will be expedient that instead of mounting the

pendency before ITAT and refixing these appeals again and again, the

Assessing Officer will take a view in this matter in consonance with the

Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's judgment. It will avoid repeated

fixation and unnecessary pendency before the ITAT inasmuch as the

Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court judgment will be binding on all concerns.

In view thereof, we reject the adjournment application. After hearing

the ld DR, perusing the material available on the record, we set aside

the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same in 4 ITA 798/JP/2011_ Alka Jain Vs. ITO

consonance with the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court judgment on the

subject matter of pending Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney and ors (supra)

appeals as and when the same is delivered.

5. In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/05/2015.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (T.R. Meena) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25th May, 2015

*Ranjan

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Akla Jain, Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 6(3), 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. 798/JP/2011) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar