Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Jaipur v. M/S. Rajaram & Party, Jaipur

1 D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2/2011 & D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 394/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT (1) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPURVS.M/S. RAJARAM & PARTY, JAIPUR. AND (2) D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 394/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPURVS.M/S. RAJARAM & PARTY, JAIPUR. Date: 03.07.2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA'HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anuroop Singhi,for the appellant. Heard on question of admission. The question raised in the present appeals is withrespect to deletion of addition of Rs. 16,00,000/-, which wasmade by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). CIT(A) has referred to the various facts andmaterial available on record. 8 persons had withdrawn a sumof Rs. 1,13,325/- each through D.D.s on 27.10.1994 from M/s.Sadasukh Manakchand Bikaner. These D.D.s were deposited inUnion Bank of India, Jaipur on 09.12.1994. On 13.12.1994, theamount was withdrawn in cash and again on 05.12.1994, Rs.1,13,065/- was drawn by each of 8 persons through D.D.s from D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2/2011 &D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 394/2011 M/s. Sadasukh Manakchand and were deposited in theirrespective bank accounts on 13.12.1994. On 15.12.1994 cashwas drawn to start some business jointly. Since the businesscould not be started, all these 8 persons re-deposited Rs. 2Lacs each in their bank accounts on 21.02.1995 and issuedcheques in the name of AOP. The CIT(A) Bikaner found thedeposits made by these 8 persons in M/s. SadasukhManakchand , Bikaner as genuine. CIT(A) Bikaner, afterexamining the facts at length, held that investments made bythese 8 persons and others in M/s. Sadasukh Manakchand aregenuine and quashed the second notice issued under Section148 of the Act. The appeal against the order of CIT(A) filed bythe department was rejected by ITAT Jodhpur Bench.Considering the facts and findings of CIT(A) Bikaner in the caseof Sh. Amarchand Rathi Prop. M/s. Sadasukh ManakchandBikaner as well as Jodhpur Bench of ITAT in that case, capitalcontribution by these 8 persons was accepted as genuine in A.Y.1996-97 by the AO, it was requested that addition of Rs. 16Lacs may be deleted. CIT(A) has considered the fact that the deposits ofRs. 2 Lacs each by the 8 persons to these bank accounts weremade from withdrawals from M/s. Sadasukh ManakchandBikaner, who was an existing assessee at Bikaner at therelevant time. All these 8 persons were members of AOP insubsequent years, therefore, it cannot be said that their identityis not established. The source of deposits has also been foundto be explained by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has accepted thatthese 8 persons have been filing returns of income and they D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2/2011 &D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 394/2011 were assessed to tax. Confirmations were filed before the AO.Thus, addition of Rs. 16 Lacs was deleted. As a sequal theretoground No. 2 of the appeal was decided in favour the assessee.Against the order passed by the CIT(A), an appeal waspreferred by the Revenue and cross objection was preferred bythe assessee before the ITAT. The finding recorded by CIT(A),is based upon the evidence and material available on record,has been affirmed by the ITAT and appeal of the Revenue hasbeen dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee hasbeen allowed. Being aggrieved with the same, the Revenuehas preferred instant appeals. Since the matter involved in the instant appeals issame, hence, the appeals are being decided by this commonjudgment. Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf were assessed to tax. Confirmations were filed before the AO.Thus, addition of Rs. 16 Lacs was deleted. As a sequal theretoground No. 2 of the appeal was decided in favour the assessee.Against the order passed by the CIT(A), an appeal waspreferred by the Revenue and cross objection was preferred bythe assessee before the ITAT. The finding recorded by CIT(A),is based upon the evidence and material available on record,has been affirmed by the ITAT and appeal of the Revenue hasbeen dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee hasbeen allowed. Being aggrieved with the same, the Revenuehas preferred instant appeals. Since the matter involved in the instant appeals issame, hence, the appeals are being decided by this commonjudgment. Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has submitted that deletion of Rs. 16 Lacs wasnot warranted, the order passed by the Assessing Officer wasappropriate. Assessee has failed to explain the income and thesource of the said amount. In view of the facts which have been found by theCIT(A), aforesaid submission raised by counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant cannot be entertained. Deposit of theamount has been found to be explained by the CIT(A) for thevarious reasons which have been mentioned in the orderpassed by the CIT(A). The amount was deposited through D.D.sin the bank accounts of each of 8 persons twice-once on09.12.1994 and again on 13.12.1994. Identity of thesepersons as well as source of deposit has been found to be D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2/2011D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 394/2011 & established. It cannot be said that findings of facts recorded byCIT(A) are not based on evidence. There was evidence onrecord and findings of facts have been recorded by the CIT(A),which have been affirmed by ITAT. Counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant was unable to show that concurrentfindings of facts recorded by CIT(A) as well as ITAT areperverse and not based upon any evidence or could not havebeen arrived at by a person of prudence acting in reasonablemanner. We find that no substantial question of law isinvolved in the instant appeals and the same are, accordingly,dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. Manoj “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporatedin the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANIJUNIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT.