KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of these appeals, the appellants have assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee reducing the GP rate from 15% to 12%.
(2.) In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment. For convenience of the court, facts are taken from ITA No.146/2018.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:- Appeal No.146/2018 (i) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while confirming the enhanced addition of Rs. 14,14,80,498/- out of the enhanced addition made by ld. CIT(A) ignoring the explanation submitted by the Assessee-appellant before the search team at the time of search on 20.5.2009 as well as explained before the ld. AO as well as before the authorities? (ii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while sustaining the aforesaid enhanced addition made by ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 14,14,80,498/- on account of so called unaccounted stocks based on its suspicion and surmises and without having any evidence in support of the enhanced addition? (iii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while sustaining the aforesaid addition of Rs. 14,14,80,498/- made by ld. CIT(A) by comparing the statement dated 30.4.2009 submitted by assessee-appellant to State Bank of Indore and the actual stock found while the books of accounts were rejected under section 145(3) by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ld. ITAT, Jaipur? Appeal No.148/2018 (i) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while confirming the addition of Rs. 4,23,56,186/- made by ld. CIT(A) ignoring the explanation submitted by the assessee-appellant before the search team at the time of search on 20.5.2009 as well as explained before the ld. CIT(A)? (ii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while confirming the aforesaid addition made by ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 4,23,56,186/- on account of so called unaccounted stocks based on its suspicion and surmises and without having any evidence in support of the addition? (iii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while confirming the addition made by ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 4,23,56,186/- merely on the basis of its findings in the case of M/s. Clarity Gold who deals in business of Gold and of cutting and polishing of raw material i.e. kharad and thus the business of the assesseecompany and M/s. Clarity Gold is of similar nature?;