By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/22ND JYAISHTA, 1937 ITA.No. 55 of 2015 () ---------------------- ORDER IN ITA NOS.316 - 318/COCH/2012 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 27-12-2013APPELLANT:------------------- A.A.DAVIS ARIMBOOR, ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE, KODANNUR THRISSUR BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL; CIRCLE, THRISSUR 680001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2015, ALONG WITH ITA. 58/2015, ITA. 59/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 55 of 2015 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A : COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE B : COPY OF LETTER FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE C : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2007-08ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, KOCHI -18. ANNEXURE E : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NOS.318-318/COCH/2012. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smv ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos.55, 58 & 59 of 2015-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2015 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J. These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging thecommon order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Cochin Bench in I.T.A. Nos.316 to 318 of 2012 pertaining to theassessment years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. 2. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing ornaments forjewellery shops and is also a Director of two companies carryingon kuri or chit business. Revenue carried out search and seizureoperations in the business premises of M/s. St.Antony's TimberDepot, Thrissur and consequent thereto the assessee was alsosubjected to search and seizure on 24.10.2008. Following thisassessment was completed under Section 143(3) r/w. Section153A of the Income Tax Act by making various additions, in allthe three years under consideration which mainly relate to theconsideration paid on purchase of properties. In the appellate proceedings, the additions relating to the difference inconsiderations was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner.The assessee filed further appeals before the Tribunal and theTribunal disposed of the appeals by the impugned order. It isthis impugned common order which is under challenge beforeus. 3. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learnedStanding Counsel for the Revenue. 4. Admittedly the additions were made by the assessingofficer placing reliance on the document seized (SJ-III) duringthe course of the search of another assessee by name Babu Johnand also the sworn statements given by the assessee on24.10.2008 and 30.10.2008. In the statement dated 24.10.2008,the assessee had accepted the genuineness of the entries madein the above referred document. In the statement dated30.10.2008, he had reiterated and confirmed the earlierstatement of 24.10.2008. However it was only during theassessment proceedings that he gave a letter dated 15.02.2010retracting from the earlier two statements. However, rightly, theassessing officer rejected the belated retraction and proceeded to complete the assessment relying on the document seized andthe two statements of the assessee himself. Therefore, theseadditions made relying on this document and the statements,cannot be said to be illegal. 5. The Tribunal's order shows that despite the above, theTribunal has set aside some of the additions and remitted thematter to the assessing officer for re-consideration. to complete the assessment relying on the document seized andthe two statements of the assessee himself. Therefore, theseadditions made relying on this document and the statements,cannot be said to be illegal. 5. The Tribunal's order shows that despite the above, theTribunal has set aside some of the additions and remitted thematter to the assessing officer for re-consideration. 6. In so far as the additions which were confirmed by theTribunal are concerned, they are fully substantiated by thedocument and the statements relied on by the Department. Wedo not find any illegality nor do we find any question of lawarising in these appeals for consideration. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE SHAJI P. CHALY //true copy// smv P.A. to Judge