- (1.) This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur affirming the order dated 04.02.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Revenue has suggested the following substantial questions of law :- i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the income totaling to Rs.21,53,291/- in block period 1989-90 to 1999-2000 in the hands of Shri Ram Vilas Soni (individual) is actually the income of his wife Smt. Mohini Devi, his son Sh. Nagraj Soni and Ram Vilas Soni HUF; despite the fact that all transactions of properties are actually made by the assessee in their names who do not have sources to acquire properties and earn income shown in their names ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.9,28,136/- made on account of credit sale appearing in seized documents when particularly, the same were not disclosed in regular books of accounts iii. Whether in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal in respect of the above issues is not perverse in not appreciateing the facts of the case and simply relying upon and quoting the decision of the CIT (A)
(2.) On examination of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we do not find any just reason to treat the questions aforesaid as substantial questions of law. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer while making the additions on account of unexplained investment in purchase of property did not consider the issue that the investment, as a matter of fact, was made by Nagraj Soni, son of the assessee, Mrs. Mohini Devi, wife of the assessee and Mr. Ramvilas Moolchand Soni HUF. These investments were made in the purchase of the property out of their own sourse of income. The persons named above were assessed as HUF, which filed returns of income and had duly shown therein the investments made by it. The block assessment was also shown by these assessees.
(3.) In view of it, no reason exists to interfere with the matter. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.;