SRIRAM REFREGERATION INDUSTRIES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER HYDERABAD

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