This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 561/JP/13 dated

07.09.2015. In its application, the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal has set aside the assessment to decide the issue of estimation of income on account of bogus/unverifiable purchases to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after the judgement of Honble High court is delivered in the case of Anuj Kumar Varshney and others. MA No. 18/JP/16 (A/o of ITA No. 561/JP/13) ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur vs. M/s Kinubaba Jewellery (India) (P) Ltd. Jaipur 2

2. It was submitted by the Revenue that the decision of the Tribunal in setting aside the assessment is not justifiable as any matter cannot be set aside for afresh assessment subject to an uncertain future event and also for indefinite period. The set- aside assessments are required to be completed by the AO within the time prescribed in Section 153(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 which is one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the ITAT is received by the concerned Commissioner. This limitation cannot be extended by the Honble ITAT itself for indefinite and uncertain period. As no limitation has been prescribed for the decision of the Honble High Court, therefore an assessment cannot be kept in abeyance till such order of the Honble High Court. Further, it was submitted that it is mentioned in the Tribunal order that Departmental Representative had stated that the issue in question may be decided as per the judgement of Honble ITAT dated 22.10.2914 rendered in the case of Anuj Kumar Varshney & others vs. ITO. This observation is factually not correct because no such acceptance was given by departmental Representative. Since the mistake is apparent from the order of the Honble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur the same may kindly be rectified under section 254(2) of IT Act, 1961 by recalling the appeal order and deciding the same on merits.

3. Here it would be relevant to refer to the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench, which is the subject matter of present application, which is as under:

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. This Bench of ITAT has taken decision to apply 15% net profit rate on unverifiable pu4rchawses in the cases of Anuj Kumar Varshney and others vs. ITO (ITA No. 187/JP/20-12 dated 22.10.2014). However, assessees request is accepted and the AO is directed to reframe assessment order by considering outcome of this issue as appeal in case of unverifiable purchase/ bogus purchases is pending before Honble Rajasthan High Court.

MA No. 18/JP/16 (A/o of ITA No. 561/JP/13) ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur vs. M/s Kinubaba Jewellery (India) (P) Ltd. Jaipur 3

4. The ld DR took us through the relevant provisions of Section 153(2A) of the Act which states as under:

(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections(1), (1A), (1B) and (2) in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971 and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order u/s 250 or 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 250 or section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order u/s 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner or chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.

5. From the perusal of material available on record, it is noted that only issue involved in the assessment proceedings related to rejection of books of accounts and addition on account of unverified purchases. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 07.09.2015 has set aside the issue and restored the matter back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh after the judgement of Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Anuj Kumar Varshney & Others vs. ITO(Supra) is delivered. From the perusal of records, it is also noted that the provisions of Section 153(2A) of the Act were not brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench. We accordingly recall the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated

07.09 .2015 and direct the Registry to fix the Revenue appeal for fresh hearing in due course. MA No. 18/JP/16 (A/o of ITA No. 561/JP/13) ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur vs. M/s Kinubaba Jewellery (India) (P) Ltd. Jaipur 4 The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Jaipur Dated:- 25/11/2016 Pillai vknsk dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, ward 2(2), Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s Kinubaba Jewellery (India) (P) Ltd. Jaipur

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT I, Jaipur

4. vk;dj vk;qDrvihy@The CIT(A)-I, Jaipur

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

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 18/JP/2016) vknskkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar.