Ita/1/2005 Of M/S.kurunnum Velil Financiers(P) Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calicut

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 ITA.No. 1 of 2005() ------------------- ITA.254/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------ M/S.KURUNNUM VELIL FINANCIERS (P)LTD., CALICUT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/REVENUE: -------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, ALONG WITH ITA NO. 3 OF 2005 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos. 1 & 3 2005 & ,51, 52, & 53/2007 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. The appellant is a private limited company which was engaged inthe business of money lending. Though interest at the rate of 36% perannum was collected on lending, 18% only was accounted and balance18% was taken by the Managing Director. The assessee company inwhose hands entire income was assessed though filed appeals againstassessments, the appellate authorities including the Tribunal confirmedit. The case put forward by the assessee is that for unaccounted interestthe assessment should be made in the name of Managing Directorpersonally. The assessee has raised a contention that ManagingDirector returned the very same income in his personal income taxreturn as income from other source. The Tribunal after verifying therecords rejected this explanation. We find that these appeals are alsofiled by the very same Managing Director representing the assessee. We do not find any justification to interfere with the Tribunal's ordersbecause it is a collusive deal between the Managing Director and thecompany to avoid payment of tax. We therefore dismiss the appeals. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk