Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri C.S.Kameswara rao

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 323 / 2005 Naresh Chand Jain ----Appellant Versus Asstti Commissioner I T ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 14/02/2017 1. By way of this appeal the appellant has assailing the judgment and order of the assessee whereby Tribunal while considering the appeal has dismissed the appeal confirming the order of AO and the CIT (A). 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 26.04.2010 framed the following substantial question of law:- (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,667/- by way of estimated expenditure on Grith Pravesh Ceremony as un- disclosed income of the appellant in block assessment proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 38,625/- on account of un-explained investment in purchase of Motorcycle for school going children of the Assessee in block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV B of the Income

(2 of 2) [ITA-322/2005]

Tax Act? 3. However, taking into consideration the observations made by the Tribunal which reads as under: “6. We heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record from which it appears that the assessees have not shown any withdrawal either for Grah Pravesh ceremony or for purchasing of the motor cycle. The withdrawal shown for the purpose of construction was already explained. There is no question to save any money from the cost of construction. In these circumstances, we agree with the orders of the lower authorities. Without repeating, the orders of the lower authorities are hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein.” 4. These questions are purely questions of law and the same are concurrent finding of law. 5. We see no question of law arises in this appeal. 6. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Bm gandhi/34