Ita/118/2000 Of E.v.philip v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Ekm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/29TH JYAISHTA 1934 I.T.A.No.118 of 2000 -------------------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER I.T.(S&S) A.No.25(Coch)/97 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN, DATED 20.03.2000. --------------- APPELLANT/APPELLANT:- --------------------------------------- E.V.PHILIP,PHILIP GARDEN,KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALLY. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:- --------------------------------------------- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT),SPECIAL RANGE-II,ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR GOVT. OF INDIA (TAXES) SRI.P.K.R.MENON & STANDING COUNSEL FOR GOVT.OF INDIA (TAXES) SRI.JOSE K.JOSEPH. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2012,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. ------------------------------------ I.T.A.No.118 of 2000 ------------------------------------ Dated this, the 19[th] day of June, 2012 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J: The only question argued before us in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea of theassessee regarding a statement admittedly recorded from theassessee in terms of Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act,hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. That issue has beenspecifically considered in paragraph 13 of the impugned order.The jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been appropriately exercised toadvert to the relevant materials and to consider the plea asregards that issue in its entirety. 2. The assessee's contention is that the addition of an amount of Rupees nine lakhs is unsustainable. He says that thestatement under Section 132(4) was recorded from him while hewas in a confused state of mind and all that he meant to say thenwas that he had given three lakhs of rupees to all his threedaughters together. He attempts to explain that it was not Rupeesthree lakhs “each” as recorded in that statement under Section 132(4) and that the amount paid was actually given by theirbrothers as instructed by the father. 3. Now, adverting to paragraph 13 of the impugned order, it has been rightly noticed by the Tribunal that after thestatements given under oath on 19.2.1996 and 29.2.1996, theassessee did not make any reference to those earlier statementseven in his letter dated 13.2.1997. The Tribunal was, in our view,right in holding that there is nothing on record to show that theassessee had ever rebutted the presumption available underSection 132(4). At best what he is shown to have done is to file anaffidavit when the matter came up before the Tribunal. Havingnoticed that, we would reiterate the finding of the Tribunal thateven in his letter dated 13.2.1997, the assessee did not make anyreference to the earlier statements made under oath on 19.2.1996and 29.2.1996, to which statements provisions of Section 132(4)of the Act applies. The period within which a statement made onoath is retracted is of abundant relevance in deciding statutorymatters of such nature. On the whole, we find no legal infirmitywith the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal inpara 13 of the impugned order, thereby holding that the assessee had not succeeded as regarding the amount of Rupees nine lakhs.The decision of the Tribunal confirming the addition of that amountdoes not warrant interference in this I.T. appeal. The appeal,hence, fails. 4. No other point has been raised or argued before us.In the result, this8 appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge vku/200612. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge - true copy -