SHRI PRAKASH MAKHIJA S/O SHRI GOVIND RAM MAKHIJA V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

ITA/80/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Prakash Makhija, the proprietor of M/s Yash Traders, who appealed against the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities regarding additions made to his income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were based on incriminating documents seized during a search operation on 12.10.2011, and statements made by the assessee. The primary contention was that the document did not explicitly record any investment by the assessee, and challenges were made regarding the ownership of a mine, which was allegedly the basis of a partnership. Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT rejected these submissions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768604 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: NARESH GU PTA
• Keywords: IKRARNAMA; Income tax appeal; Incriminating documents; Investment; Partnership; Search Assessment; Mine Ownership
• Section: 68; 260A; 153(A)

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 80/2019 Shri Prakash Makhija S/o Shri Govind Ram Makhija, Aged About 43 Years, (Approx) B/c Makhija Proprietor Of M/s Yash Traders, Old Dhan Mandi, Kota ----Appellant Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, N.c.r. Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, N.c.r. Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 16/09/2019 1. The appellant, in this appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 questions the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Lower Appellate Authorities which had endorsed the A.O’s addition made in the course of search assessments under Section 153(A). 2. The assessee’s premises-as well as those of others were searched on 12.10.2011. Certain incriminating documents were seized; these included a document termed as Ikrarnama. The assessee’s statement too was recorded in the course of the search proceedings. The A.O. acting on the materials recovered and statement made; brought to tax an amount of `20 lakhs, inter alia in the hands of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee unsuccessfully appealed contending that the document on the basis of which the petition was made, did not categorically record that any amount was invested by him. It was also urged (2 of 2) [ITA-80/2019] that so called one Mr.Jagdish Panjwani, alleged owner of the mine, in fact was not the owner of the mine, which was the alleged basis of the partnership. Both the CIT(A) and later on the ITAT, rejected there submissions. 3. Learned counsel relied upon the statements made (which are abstracted as part of the CIT’s order) and the fact that Jagdish Panjwani was not the owner of the mines. It was also stated that the assessee too was not the owner of the mine, nor had he invested any amount and the inference drawn by the ITAT was, therefore, perverse and contrary to the facts. 4. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the A.O’s decision endorsed by the lower appellate authorities is based upon appreciation of the facts and documents. Furthermore, the assessee’s premises were searched; they yielded the document. In the course of the search, the assessee made certain admissions, especially with respect to the amounts invested. The later retraction made more than a year and three months later when this return was filed on 15.01.2013 i.e. stating Jagdish Panjwani was not the owner of the mines was not conclusive. The Court is also of the view that the initial burden of showing that the transaction had not taken place and statement made earlier was wholly incorrect or that the documents recovered did not support the findings, was not dislodged. The concurrent findings of fact are, therefore, warranted. Concurrent findings of the ITAT are those of fact. 5. No question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH GUPTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ NAWAL KISHORE-Arun/89 "