RATAN KUMAR TIKKIWAL vs. UNION OF INDIA and ORS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/71/2000HC RajasthanRJHC02019539200020 September 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal was just and proper after considering the evidence on record. The Court found no perversity in the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The ITAT's reasoning, as quoted in the judgment, highlighted the assessee's failure to prove Smt. Ramadevi's residence with any circumstantial or other evidence, including the inability to produce a Ration Card. The Tribunal also noted that no statement from any family member or any evidence found during the search supported the claim of Smt. Ramadevi's residence or the presence of her late husband's belongings. Therefore, the ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be justified and not perverse. The High Court agreed with this assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ratan Kumar Tikkiwal, filed an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The core of the dispute involved seized gold ornaments and silver utensils. The procedural history indicates that the High Court framed a substantial question of law for consideration. The ITAT's order, which is under challenge, dealt with the issue of whether Smt. Ramadevi was residing with the assessee, a fact the assessee failed to prove.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by the learned ITAT regarding the seized gold ornaments and silver utensils is based on a perverse finding of fact without considering the material evidence placed on record by the appellant, and whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of the ITAT's finding). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT's conclusion was perverse and failed to consider the material evidence placed on record, including an affidavit filed by Smt. Rama Devi. The assessee relied on a decision reported in 30 ITR page 181. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly record arguments, but the ITAT's observations indicate that the assessee failed to prove Smt. Ramadevi's residence with the assessee. The revenue's position, as reflected in the ITAT's reasoning, was that the assessee could not provide evidence like a Ration Card to substantiate the claim. The ITAT noted that no member of the family mentioned Smt. Ramadevi's residence, nor was any evidence found to support it during the search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 71/2000 APPELLANT Ratan Kumar Tikkiwal s/o Late Shri Shobharam Tikkiwal M/s Jagdish Narain Ratan Kumar Tonk. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Union of India through commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur (presently assessed by Income Tax Officer, Tonk). DATE OF ORDER ::: 20.09.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Anant Kasliwal for the appellant. Mrs. Parinitoo Jain for the respondent/s. ***** 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the tribunal confirmed the order of CIT(A). 2. Counsel for the appellant has contended that question of law which has been framed by this Court by its order dated 17.1.2003, reads as under:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion drawn by Ld. ITAT as regards the seized gold ornaments and silver utensils is based on a perverse finding of fact without at all considering the material evidences placed on record by the humble appellant and whether the finding of Tribunal is perverse”? 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A. Kasliwal, he contended that in

2 view of the decision of 30 ITR page 181 and the affidavit filed by the Smt. Rama Devi, the Tribunal has observed as under:- “We have heard the rival parties and have examined all the relevant details placed on record. The main issue regarding the fact that Smt. Ramadevi was residing with the assessee could not be proved by the assessee by any circumstantial or other evidence. A pointed question was put to the ld. A/R regarding proving this fact with reference to Ration Card etc. The ld. A/R, however, showed his in ability to place anything on record. At the time of carrying out the search u/s 132, statements of all the members of the family were recorded and he whisper by any member at any stage was made regarding the residence of Smt. Ramadevi nor any evidence was detected that Smt. Ramadevi or any belonging of her late husband were found at this place. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while deciding the issue against the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has considered all the material facts and the order passed by him cannot be considered as unjustified or perverse. We, therefore, decline to interfere on this account.” 4. In our opinion, after considering the evidence on record, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. 5. We find that there is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. The same is dismissed. (Banwari Lal Sharma), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. A.Sharma/10

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →