HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 41 / 2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II ,JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus M/S RAMESHWAR LAL SHAH HUF, A-16, SUBHASH NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 49 / 2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II ,JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus M/S RAMESHWAR LAL SHAH HUF, A-16, SUBHASH NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with Mr. Prateek Kedawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 08/08/2017 1. By way of these appeals, appellant has challenged judgment and order passed by tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed appeals of appellant-revenue. 2. This court while admitting Appeal No.41/2010 on 19.10.2010 has framed following substantial question of law:- Whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT has acted perversely and illegally in holding that once both debits and credits are (2 of 2) [ ITA-41/2010] considered unexplained then peak is to be ascertained by considering all such entries in bank account besides entries of cash deposit/withdrawal despite fact that evidence regarding utilization of draft and TT is not there? 3. While admitting Appeal NO.49/2010 on 10.03.2010, this court has framed following substantial question of law:- Whether in facts and circumstances of case, ITAT and has acted perversely and illegally and was justified in confirming order of C.I.T.(A) deleting additions made under Section 68 by Assessing Officer? 4. We have heard learned counsel for parties. 5. Since, there is concurrent findings of fact, we find no reason to interfere in orders of authorities below. questions are answered in favour of assessee and against department. 6. appeals stand dismissed accordingly. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Jyoti Item No.95-96 Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur v. Rameshwar Lal Shah HUF