Bal Chand Purohit v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central State Circle, Jaipur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.23/2010 Bal Chand PurohitVs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Central State Circle, Jaipur. DATE OF ORDER ::: 27.9.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA None present, for the appellant.Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the respondent. ***** 1.By way of this appeal, assessee-appellant haschallenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal wherebythe Tribunal has confirmed the order of the AO as well as theCIT (Appeals). 2.In view of the concurrent finding, the Tribunal hasparagraph No. 6 observed as under:- “Considering the above submissions Ifind that it is an undisputed fact that theamount was found during the course of searchand seizure proceedings from the premises ofthe assessee was not disclosed by theassessee in its return of income and Rs.1,50,000/- was surrendered out of the saidrecovered amount by the assessee in its returnof income for undisclosed sources for thepurpose of taxation. All these material factssuggest the concealment of particulars ofincome or furnishing inaccurate particularsthereof by the assessee. In other words theamount was surrendered due to recovery ofthe amount of Rs. 2,17,595/- during thecourse of search and seizure proceedings atthe premises of the assessee. Thus, it cannotbe said as voluntary action on the part of theassessee. The assessee has also failed toestablish nexus between the amount recoveredand the income declared by the other members of the family. Thus, it cannot be saidthat eh omission on the part of the assessee inits return of income was justified. Taking allthe material fact in totally I do not find reasonto interfere with the orders of the lowerauthority in this regard. The case laws reliedupon by the Ld. AR distinguishable facts arenot helpful to the assessee as in those casesthe assessee could not establish thecorrectness of the explanation furnished due tonon availability of the evidence at that laterstage and its inability in producing thoseevidence in support due to somecircumstances beyond its control and thus theamount was surrendered for addition on whichpenalty was levied. No such circumstances isthere in the present case to justify the bonafide of the assessee for non inclusion of theamount surrendered in its return of incomeinitially filed. Thus, there was concealment ofparticulars of income of furnishing inaccurateparticulars thereof towards the surrenderedamount on which penalty in question has beenrightly levied.l The same is upheld. The groundis accordingly rejected.” 3.In that view of the matter and the view taken by the Tribunal the issue is answered in favour of the Departmentagainst the assessee. 4.The appeal stands dismissed. (Banwari Lal Sharma), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. Ashutosh168.