Shri Shailesh Kasliwal, 24 Ganesh Marg Bapu Nagar Jaipur v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, N.c.r.b. Buildingstatue Circle, Jaipur2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2) Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 310/2018 Shri Shailesh Kasliwal, 24 Ganesh Marg Bapu Nagar Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, N.C.R.B. BuildingStatue Circle, Jaipur2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2) Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. R.B. Mathur, Adv. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 23/07/2019 D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.2303/2018:- For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.The application is allowed. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.310/2018:- 1.The assessee-appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) urges firstly that the ITATfell into error in not appreciating that the reassessment notice wasinvalid and illegal and secondly, on merits, the addition of₹32,00,000/- under Section 54F of the Act was unwarranted. 2.As far as the first ground is concerned, this Court notices atthe outset that this grievance was expressly given up at the stageof ITAT so the appellant-assessee cannot urge this ground as aquestion of law. 3.As far as the second ground is concerned, what is apparentfrom the record is that the appellant’s completed assessment wasre-opened since the Assessing Officer noticed that a sale transaction had escaped assessment. It is contended that duringthe proceedings, land was purchased by him from his father forsale consideration of ₹32,00,000/-. There was no bank accountstatement in respect of this transaction evidencing payments bycheque. The assessee also did not support this contention that thecash amounts were paid and were accounted for. After sufferingan adverse order, in appeal before the ITAT, for the first time asubmission was made on his behalf that the evidence with respectto ₹32,00,000/- was retained electronically and that it had beeninfected by computer vires. The ITAT rejected this argumentnoticing that neither before the CIT (A) nor before the AO was anysuch averment or argument ever made. 4.In view of the above concurrent factual findings, this Court isof the opinion that no question of law arises. 5.The appeal is dismissed. All pending applications aredisposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ Ramesh Vaishnav/Fateh Raj Bohra/12.