Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, the addition made under Section 68 (of 16,56,000/-) was in regard to cash Rs. amount received by the assessee but not reported in assessment in the Returns.

Held that— the assessee was under a duty to discharge the primary onus that lay upon him that the amounts, reflected a genuine transaction and were borrowed from existing parties which was creditworthy. The materials on record show that of these three ingredients that atleast in regard to two ingredients assessee could not produce sufficient materials to convince the revenue authorities. No question of law therefore arises.

As regards the plea advanced by the assessee regarding the HUF owned property, it is noticeable that the family settlement was in respect to the property owned by the assessee’s father which was allegedly ancestral. Upon entering into the family settlement and the division of the property, a share which fell to the assessee became his individual one having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chander Sen (AIR 1986 SC 1753). Therefore, the inference drawn by the lower appellate authorities cannot be said to be per se illegal.[BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT S/O SHRI CHATRAPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (4) , JAIPUR][2019] 17 ITCD Online (50) [RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]