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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/80/2019HC RajasthanRJHC02056874201916 September 2019Author: S. RAVINDRA BHAT,PRAKASH GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate authorities. The Court reasoned that the AO's decision, endorsed by the CIT(A) and ITAT, was based on a proper appreciation of the facts and documents recovered during the search. The assessee's premises yielded incriminating documents, and the assessee made certain admissions in his statement regarding invested amounts. The Court considered the assessee's later retraction, made over a year later when filing the return, stating Mr. Jagdish Panjwani was not the owner of the mines, as not being conclusive. The initial burden on the assessee to show that the transaction had not taken place, that the earlier statement was incorrect, or that the recovered documents did not support the findings, was not discharged. Therefore, the concurrent findings of fact were deemed warranted, and the ITAT's findings were considered findings of fact. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Prakash Makhija, is appealing a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning search assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's premises were searched on October 12, 2011, leading to the seizure of incriminating documents, including an 'Ikrarnama', and the recording of the assessee's statement. Based on these findings, the Assessing Officer (AO) added an amount of ₹20 lakhs to the assessee's income under Section 68. The assessee contended that the 'Ikrarnama' did not explicitly state his investment and that the alleged owner of the mine, Mr. Jagdish Panjwani, was not the actual owner. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT rejected these contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate authorities, which upheld the addition made by the AO under Section 68 based on documents and statements recovered during a search assessment under Section 153A. Assessee's Contentions: - The 'Ikrarnama' did not categorically record any investment made by the assessee. - Mr. Jagdish Panjwani, the alleged owner of the mine, was not the actual owner, undermining the basis of the partnership. - The inference drawn by the ITAT was perverse and contrary to the facts, as the assessee had not invested any amount and was not the owner of the mine. - Reliance was placed on the statements made and the fact that Mr. Jagdish Panjwani was not the owner of the mines. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue beyond the affirmation of the lower authorities' findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 68,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →