HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.52/2019 Bhopal Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Chatrapal Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 6, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle , Jaipur Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 16/09/2019 1. Two questions of law urged in this appeal are with respect to firstly long term capital gain, added assessee and brought to enhanced tax, to extent of 5,33,720/- and secondly explained credit brought to tax under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to tune of 16,56,000/-. 2. assessee s income for assessment year 2008- 09 in present case was re-assessed under Section 148/149 of Act. After considering Return, assessing officer brought amount to various taxes. In appeals, CIT(A) and ITAT yielded some relief; additions with respect to two plots, made by assessing officer, were remanded for verification. assessee urges under Section 260A that findings whereby amounts were brought to tax in his hands, in respect to property transactions are erroneous. 3. It is argued that properties were HUF Properties and at relevant time there was no requirement of reporting them for income tax purposes. Learned counsel also highlighted in 2008 that there was no legal requirement to obtain PAN registration. Counsel highlighted that property in question fell (2 of 2) [ITA-52/2019] to share of assessee through family settlement on 01/05/2001, he held on behalf of HUF as karta. As far as second issue with regard to addition made under Section 68 is concerned, learned counsel submitted that relevant documents with regard to credits obtained from four parties in form of three affidavits were produced before assessing officer, who chose not to believe them. It was further submitted that additional evidence was adduced under Rule 46A at appellate stage. Learned counsel submitted that inferences drawn by lower appellate authorities are incorrect in law. 4. findings with respect to two issues highlighted by appellant are concurrent. addition made under Section 68 (of 16,56,000/-) was in regard to cash amount received by assessee but not reported in assessment in Returns. Clearly, assessee was under duty to discharge primary onus that lay upon him that amounts, reflected genuine transaction and were borrowed from existing parties which was creditworthy. materials on record show that of these three ingredients that atleast in regard to two ingredients assessee could not produce sufficient materials to convince revenue authorities.No question of law therefore arises. 5. As regards plea advanced by assessee regarding HUF owned property, it is noticeable that family settlement was in respect to property owned by assessee s father which was allegedly ancestral. Upon entering into family settlement and division of property, share which fell to assessee became his individual one having regard to judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chander Sen (AIR 1986 SC 1753). Therefore, inference drawn by lower appellate authorities cannot be said to be per se illegal. 6. No interference is called for. 7. appeal is dismissed. (PRAKASH GUPTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ ANIL KUMAR GOYAL /33 Bhopal Singh Shekhawat v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur