Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur v. Shri Shanti Lal Jain

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 73 / 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Shri Shanti lal Jain s/o Late Shri Gamer lal Jain, Prop. of M/s Meenakshi Property Dealer, 1, Reti Stand, Central Area, Udaipur (Raj.). ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr.KK Bissa. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anjay Kothari. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment / Order 23/01/2018 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasallowed the appeal of the assessee 2.While admitting the appeal, this Court framed followingsubstantial question of law :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT has been justified in deleting the penalty to thetune of Rs.35,07,610/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ?" 3.Facts of the case are that the assessee is a property dealer and also has income from share from partnership firm, incomefrom house property and income from other sources. He filedreturn of income u/s 139(1) on 31.10.2005 declaring income ofRs. 15.37.240/-. Search u/s 132 was carried out on 14.11.2006 at the premises of the assessee. During survey u/s 133A conductedat the shop of the assessee certain papers relating to investmentin purchase of land were found recorded on the paper markedAnnexure-A 23. On these pages detail of land area and name ofcertain persons are mentioned. No amount is noted on thesepapers. The assessee in his statement recorded at the shop inreply to question no. 2, 7 and 16 accepted that, on these papersthe detail of lands in which he has made investment is noted forwhich he stated the estimated amount and offered suchinvestment for tax. 4.The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee relying uponthe decision of this Court in 270 ITR 523 (Raj.) (Gebilal Kanhaialal(HUF) vs. ACIT) which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court inthe judgment reported in 348 ITR 561. 5.In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour ofthe assessee and against the department.the assessee and against the department. 6.In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (K. S. JHAVERI)J. S.Phophaliya/-54