Bhopal Singh Shekhawat v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), New Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle , Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.52/2019 Bhopal Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Chatrapal Singh Shekhawat,Aged About 69 Years, R/o 6, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), New Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle , Jaipur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan PathakFor Respondent(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 16/09/2019 1.Two questions of law urged in this appeal are withrespect to firstly the long term capital gain, added the assesseeand brought to enhanced tax, to the extent of 5,33,720/- and₹secondly an explained credit brought to tax under Section 68 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of 16,56,000/-.₹ 2.The assessee’s income for the assessment year 2008-09 in the present case was re-assessed under Section 148/149 ofthe Act. After considering the Return, the assessing officer broughtthe amount to various taxes. In appeals, the CIT(A) and ITATyielded some relief; the additions with respect to two plots, madeby the assessing officer, were remanded for verification. Theassessee urges under Section 260A that the findings wherebyamounts were brought to tax in his hands, in respect to propertytransactions are erroneous. 3.It is argued that the properties were HUF Propertiesand at the relevant time there was no requirement of reportingthem for income tax purposes. Learned counsel also highlighted in2008 that there was no legal requirement to obtain a PANregistration. Counsel highlighted that the property in question fell to the share of the assessee through a family settlement on01/05/2001, he held on behalf of HUF as a karta. As far as thesecond issue with regard to the addition made under Section 68 isconcerned, learned counsel submitted that the relevant documentswith regard to the credits obtained from four parties – in the formof three affidavits were produced before the assessing officer, whochose not to believe them. It was further submitted that additionalevidence was adduced under Rule 46A at the appellate stage.Learned counsel submitted that the inferences drawn by the lowerappellate authorities are incorrect in law. 4.The findings with respect to the two issues highlightedby the appellant are concurrent. The addition made under Section68 (of 16,56,000/-) was in regard to cash amount received by₹the assessee but not reported in assessment in the Returns.Clearly, the assessee was under a duty to discharge the primaryonus that lay upon him that the amounts, reflected a genuinetransaction and were borrowed from existing parties which wascreditworthy. The materials on record show that of these threeingredients that atleast in regard to two ingredients assesseecould not produce sufficient materials to convince the revenueauthorities.No question of law therefore arises. 5.As regards the plea advanced by the assesseeregarding the HUF owned property, it is noticeable that the familysettlement was in respect to the property owned by the assessee’sfather which was allegedly ancestral. Upon entering into the familysettlement and the division of the property, a share which fell tothe assessee became his individual one having regard to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth TaxVs. Chander Sen (AIR 1986 SC 1753). Therefore, the inferencedrawn by the lower appellate authorities cannot be said to be perse illegal. 6.No interference is called for. 7.The appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH GUPTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ ANIL KUMAR GOYAL /33