Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Surendra Kumar Bilala, Jaipur vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal16 January 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal, following its own consolidated decision in the case of Anuj Kumar Varshney (ITA No. 187/JP/2012, dated 22-10-2014), holds that where purchases are found to be unverifiable, the addition to be sustained is restricted to 15% of the unverifiable purchase amount, and the appeal is allowed to that extent.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqjIN 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. 269/JP/2012 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08

Shri Surendra Kumar cuke The ACIT Bilala Vs. Circle- 5 5, Bilala Garden, Old Amer Jaipur Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADJPB 4682 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri H.M. Singhvi, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Ajay Malik, Addl. CIT

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 25/11/2014 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 16 /01/2015

vkns'k@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.

CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 12-12-2011 for the assessment year 2007-08

wherein the solitary ground of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in

confirming the trading addition of Rs. 1,82,963 which should be deleted. 2

2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR fairly conceded that the

issue in question is covered by the ITAT Jaipur Bench consolidated order

in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney and others (ITA No.

187/JP/2012 dated 22-10-2014 wherein the addition in respect of

unverifiable purchases has been held to be @ 15% of such purchases. In

assessee's case the amount of unverifiable purchases is Rs. 7,31,855/-.

Accordingly the working of the disallowance is as under:-

Amount retained by the ld. CIT(A) Rs. 1,82,963/-

Less 15% of the amount Rs. 1,09,778/- Relief Rs. 73,185/-

2.2 The ld. DR is heard on this issue

2.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials

available on record. Following our own order in the case of Shri Anuj

Kumar Varshney vs. ITO (supra), the addition to be retained in the case

of the assessee is at Rs. 1,09,778/-. Thus the appeal of the assessee is

partly allowed.

3

3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2015.

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:- 16th January, 2015

*Mishra

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

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Surendra Kumar Bilala, Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle- 5, Jaipur .

3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A).

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, Jaipur

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.269/JP/2012)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free