Ita/118/2011 Of Mrs.meena Paulson v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/14TH POUSHA 1933 ITA.No. 118 of 2011 ( ) ======================= (AGAINST ORDER DATED 30/03/2011 IN ITA.45/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH) APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT ====================== 1 MRS.MEENA PAULSON, PYNADATH HOUSE NAYATHODE P.O. ANAGAMALY BY ADV.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S) / RESPONDENT ============= 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON04-01-2012 , ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 119, 120, 121, 122 & 123 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA NO.118/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A :COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30/12/2008 OF THEASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2002-03 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-B :COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOCHI FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 DATED 15/10/2009 ISSUED TO THEAPPELLANT. ANNEXURE-C :COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 30/03/2011 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. //TRUE COPY// jg PA TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal Nos.118,119,120,121,122 & 123 of 2011 ....................................................................Dated this the 4[th ]day of January, 2012. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for therespondent. 2. The first question raised is with regard to validity ofassessments made under Section 153C on appellant who is a partnerpursuant to search made in the premises of the partnership firm.However, we do not go into this question because the Tribunal has inparagraph 3.3 recorded that the assessee has not questioned the validityof assessments completed under Section 153C of the Act. 3. The next question raised pertains to estimation of agricultural income wherein we notice that Tribunal has modified income fixed ona rational basis because assessee admittedly did not maintain any books of accounts and in the statement recorded under Section 132 of the Actassessee conceded that her brother-in-law was managing theagricultural farm and even he was only recording the income in slips which were also not produced. We, therefore, do not find anysubstantial question of law in the orders of the Tribunal pertaining toagricultural income which is excluded from assessment. Consequentlyappeals are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge K.VINOD CHANDRANJudge pms