TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby the tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the department and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee modifying the order of the CIT(A). 3. This court while admitting the appeal has framed following substantial questions of law:- D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.202/12 admitted on 03.01.2014 (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not only confirming the deletion of addition of Rs. 12,92,947/-, but, further deleting the addition of Rs. 4,30,983/- confirmed by CIT(A), thereby, deleting the addition of Rs. 17,23,930/- made on account of unverifiable purchases, despite upholding the rejection of books of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding recorded by CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer and thereby, despite confirming the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3), reducing the trading addition of Rs. 2,22,208/- to merely Rs. 43,673/- by applying gross profit rate of 17% as against 30%?" D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.205/12 admitted on 03.01.2014 "1. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- made on account of unverifiable purchases by not only confirming the deletion of addition of Rs. 9,75,000/-, but, further deleting the addition of Rs. 3,25,000/-, which was even confirmed by CIT(A), despite upholding the rejection of books....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10,16,558/- made on account of unverifiable purchases made by assessee in cash and from unregistered dealers for which no details whatsoever were filed and further, confirming the deletion of addition of Rs. 26,24,674/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unverifiable purchases, thereby deleting the entire addition of Rs. 36,41,232/-? 2. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding recorded by CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer and thereby, applying gross profit rate of 18% as against 30%, which was applied by the Assessing Officer by relying upon Tribunal's own order for Assessment Year 2004- 05?" D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.214/2012 admitted on 03.01.2014 "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 4. We 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 on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments." 5. However, with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search and seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based on credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessee while filing returns of income. In these circumstances, confessions during the course of search and seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. This Instruction further states that it is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the IT Department. Similarly, while recording statement durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Satya Narayan Pandey in D.B. Tax Appeal No.620/2011 decided on 31.07.2017 wherein this court has observed as under:- "Taking into account the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Apart from that the judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant will not apply in the facts of the present case. The second question is not a question of law hence not required to be decided." 6. In view of the fact that the decision which is sought to be relied upon in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Choshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2008) 14 DTR 0257 wherein the appeal of the department was dismissed. Para 28 of the order of tribunal....