M/S. Shantilal Jain And Sons, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward25, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4114 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                                 AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                    I.T.T.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

      Heard Ms. Nishitha learned counsel representing Mr. S. Ravi,

learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sundari R. Pisupathi,

learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department

appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. Both the appeals have been filed by the appellant assailing the

order dated 20.07.2007 passed in I.T.A.Nos.322 & 323/Hyd/2002 for

the Assessment year 1997-98 by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal

Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the

Tribunal").

3. Vide order dated 20.07.2007, the Tribunal has partly allowed

the appeal preferred by the Revenue to the extent of not recognizing

the partition in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and it is this order

of the Tribunal which has been assailed by the assessee in the

present appeals.

4. A bare perusal of the reasons at which the learned Tribunal has

reversed the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] is

that the assessee has failed to produce the original books of account

either before the AO or before the CIT [A]. Neither were these materials

made available before the Tribunal while hearing the said ITAs.

5. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, on a query

being put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to what is the

material available to substantiate that partition did take place in the

HUF, the answer given by the learned counsel was that except for the

oral statement and the oral declaration, there was no cogent materials

available to show that the partition in the HUF did take place.

6. In the given factual matrix of the case, we do not find that the

order of the Tribunal to be in any manner bad in law, erroneous or

perverse nor do we find any substantial question of law made out by

the appellant in the present appeals.

7. Therefore, both the appeals fail and are accordingly rejected.

No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

Dated: 18.11.2023 Pvt