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. 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 CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 16/09/2019 1. appellant, in this appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 questions concurrent findings of fact rendered by Lower Appellate Authorities which had endorsed A.O s addition made in course of search assessments under Section 153(A). 2. assessee s premises-as well as those of others were searched on 12.10.2011. Certain incriminating documents were seized; these included document termed as Ikrarnama. assessee s statement too was recorded in course of search proceedings. A.O. acting on materials recovered and statement made; brought to tax amount of `20 lakhs, inter alia in hands of assessee under Section 68 of Act. assessee unsuccessfully appealed contending that document on basis of which petition was made, did not categorically record that any amount was invested by him. It was also urged (Downloaded on 19/09/2019 at 12:52:08 PM) (2 of 2) [ITA-80/2019] that so called one Mr.Jagdish Panjwani, alleged owner of mine, in fact was not owner of mine, which was alleged basis of partnership. Both CIT(A) and later on ITAT, rejected there submissions. 3. Learned counsel relied upon statements made (which are abstracted as part of CIT s order) and fact that Jagdish Panjwani was not owner of mines. It was also stated that assessee too was not owner of mine, nor had he invested any amount and inference drawn by ITAT was, therefore, perverse and contrary to facts. 4. At outset, this Court is of opinion that A.O s decision endorsed by lower appellate authorities is based upon appreciation of facts and documents. Furthermore, assessee s premises were searched; they yielded document. In course of search, assessee made certain admissions, especially with respect to amounts invested. later retraction made more than year and three months later when this return was filed on 15.01.2013 i.e. stating Jagdish Panjwani was not owner of mines was not conclusive. Court is also of view that initial burden of showing that transaction had not taken place and statement made earlier was wholly incorrect or that documents recovered did not support findings, was not dislodged. concurrent findings of fact are, therefore, warranted. Concurrent findings of ITAT are those of fact. 5. No question of law arises. appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH GUPTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ NAWAL KISHORE-Arun/89 (Downloaded on 19/09/2019 at 12:52:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF Prakash Makhija v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Jaipur / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jaipur