Itta/1/2008 Of M/S. Shantilal Jain And Sons, Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(5), Hyderabad

II!IIIN THE HIGH COURT FOR Ii AT HYDERABADSATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH i ' PRESENT [ [337e ]] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [N.TUKARAMJI]l.T.T.A.Nos: 1 and 2 of 2008 I.T.T.A No.1 of 2008 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section [2604 of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961]the [lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ][' ][B']arising out 6f the order of i:Hyderabad,i in ITA Nos.323lHydl2o12, [for ][assessment ][Year ][1997-98 ][dated ][20-07-]lt2007 prefer'red ag'ainst the Order of [the ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome Tax, (APPEALS)-]IlV, Hyderabad, Appeal No.200M-2(s)lClT [(A)lV/01-02, ][dated ][16-01-2002 ][preferred]against the Order of the lncome [Tax Officer, ][Ward ][2(5), Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. ] 225M d.2(5), dated 31 [-03-2000.] Between: M/s. Shantilal Jain and Sons, Represented [by its Karta, ][Sri ][Shantilal ][Jain ][S/o. ][Sri]Bichulalji, aged about 52 [years, ][R/o.7-1-64l,4, ][D.K.Road, ][Ameerpet, ][Hyderabad.] ...APPELLANT AND : lncome Tax Officer, Ward [2(5), ][Hyderabad]i ...RESPONDENTtIICounsel fotthe Appellant: Ms. NISHITHA, [Counsel ][representing ] [S. ] Counsel foithe Respondent: [Ms. SUNDARI R. PISUPATI ][(Sr ] [for ][lncome ][Tax]Dept) ...RESPONDENT |.T.T.A.No.2 of 2008 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome ['rax ]Act, i 961arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [, ]B 'Hyderabad, in ITA Nos.322lHydl2oo2, for assessment year 1997-9g dated 20-07-Hyderabad, in ITA Nos.322lHydl2oo2, for assessment year 1997-9g dated 20-07-2007 prefened against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax (AppEALS)-lv'.Hyderabad, Appear No.199M-2(s)tcff (A)rvio1-02, dated 16-0'1-2002 preferredagainst the order of the lncome Tax officer, ward 2(5), Hyderabad pAN/GlR No. s-225M d.2(5i), dated 3.1 -03-2000.against the order of the lncome Tax officer, ward 2(5), Hyderabad pAN/GlR No. s-225M d.2(5i), dated 3.1 -03-2000. Between: M/s. Shantilal Jain and sons, Represented by its Karta, Sri Shantilal Jain S/o. SriBichulalji, aged about !'52 years, P/o.7-1-641i, D.K.Road, Ameerpet, HyOeriOaO-...APPELLANT ...APPELLANT AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Hyderabad ..RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. NISHITHA, Counsel representing SRI S. RAVIcounsel for the Respondent: Ms. suNDAR| R. plsupATHr (Sr sc for lncomeTax Dept), IThe Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENTcounsel for the Respondent: Ms. suNDAR| R. plsupATHr (Sr sc for lncomeTax Dept), IThe Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2OO8 COMMON JUDGMENT (per I lon'ble Sn,lustice [P.SAITI ][KOSHY)] Heard Ms. Nishitha learned counsel representing Mr. [S. ][Ravi,]learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. [Sundari ][R. ][Pisupathi,]learned Senior Standing CounseI for Income [Tax ][Department]appearing for the respondents and [perused ][the ][record.] 2. Both the appeals have been hled by the [appellant assailing ][the]order dated 20.O7.2OO7 passed in [I.T.A.Nos.322 ][& ][323lHydl2OO2 ][fot]the Assessment year 1997-98 by the [Income-Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal]Hyderabad Bench B', Hyderabad [(hereinafter ][referred ][to ][as ]["the]Tribunal"). 3. Vide order dated 20.07.2007, the Tribunal [has ][partly ][allowed]the appeal preferred by the [Revenue ][to ][the ][extent ][of ][not ][recognizing]the partition in the Hindu Undivided Famiiy [(HUF) ][and ][it ][is this ][order]of the Tribunal which has been assailed by [the ][assessee ][in ][the]present appeals. 2. Both the appeals have been hled by the [appellant assailing ][the]order dated 20.O7.2OO7 passed in [I.T.A.Nos.322 ][& ][323lHydl2OO2 ][fot]the Assessment year 1997-98 by the [Income-Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal]Hyderabad Bench B', Hyderabad [(hereinafter ][referred ][to ][as ]["the]Tribunal"). 3. Vide order dated 20.07.2007, the Tribunal [has ][partly ][allowed]the appeal preferred by the [Revenue ][to ][the ][extent ][of ][not ][recognizing]the partition in the Hindu Undivided Famiiy [(HUF) ][and ][it ][is this ][order]of the Tribunal which has been assailed by [the ][assessee ][in ][the]present appeals. 4. A bare perusal of the reasons at which the [iearned ][Tribunal ][has]reversed the hnding of the Commissioner [of ][Income ][Tax ][Appeals] [is]that the assessee has failed to [produce the ][original ][books ][of ][account]either before the AO or before [the ] [A]. [Neither ][were these ][materials]made available before the Tribunal [while ][hearing ][the ][said ][ITAs.] 5. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, on a querybeing put lo the learned counsel for the appellant as to v/hat is thematerial available to substantiate that partition did take place in theHUF, the anslver given by the learned counsel was that except for theoral statement and the oral declaration, there was no cogent materialsavailable to shorv that the partition in the HUF did take place. 6. In the given factual matrix of the case, we do not find that theorder of the Tribunal to be in any manner bad in law, erroneous orperverse nor do we find any substantiai question of law ma.de out bythe appellant in rhe present appeals. 7. Thercfore, both the appeals fail and are accordingly rejected.No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed.stand closed. SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR\d lL,' //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome-Tax Appellate [Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' ] [' Hyderabad] 2. The Commissioner of [lncome Tax, (APPEALS)-lV, ][Hyderabad.] 3. The lncome Tax [Officer, Ward ][2(5), ][Hyderabad.] 4. One CC to SRI [S. ][RAVI, ][Advocate ] 5. One CC to SRI [SUNDARI R. PISUPATHI ][(Sr SC ][for ][lncome Tax Dept)]loPUClloPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies KamNS \ i HIGH COURTPSK, J &NTR, J' DATED:1811112023 COMMON JUDGMENT lTTA.Nos.l and 2 of 2008 ltIlI THESE APPEALSARE REJECTED st{1L* 1 [r\F- ][s ][l-4]it'\c(-)12 0E[ 20nl).4,,*