2017 (5) TMI 1474 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules in favor of tax department in appeal emphasizing transaction genuineness verification.

The High Court allowed the department's appeal, dismissing the assessee's appeal and cross objection. The Court emphasized the need to verify transaction ... Addition on account of bogus purchases - disallowed purchases be treated as ‘income from business’ OR ‘income from other sources - Held that:- The issues are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Gems Paradise, Gulab Niwas, M.I. Road, Jaipur [2016 (11) TMI 1400 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as held considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (4) TMI 1146 - SUPREME COURT] as held justification in disallowing 25% of the purchase price. Remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by the Assessing Officer Issues:Challenge to Tribunal's judgment and order, substantial questions of law regarding treatment of income, maintainability of cross objection, justification of Tribunal's decision, application of relevant legal principles.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal challenging a Tribunal's decision that dismissed the department's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal and cross objection. The High Court framed substantial questions of law, including the maintainability of the cross objection by the assessee and the justification of the Tribunal's decision regarding the treatment of disallowed purchases as 'income from business' instead of 'income from other sources'. The Court referred to a previous decision and emphasized the need to verify the genuineness of transactions based on established legal principles.The Court noted that the issues in question were answered in favor of the department and against the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in line with the principles discussed in the judgment and the need to verify the authenticity of transactions. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the direction for the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case based on the legal principles outlined in the judgment.Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal precedents and ensuring the verification of transactions for their genuineness. It underscores the need for a thorough assessment by the Assessing Officer in light of established legal principles, ultimately guiding the resolution of the appeal in favor of the department and necessitating a fresh decision based on the principles laid down by the Court.