Ita/13/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tvm v. R.prathap,Sun Food Corporation,Kollam

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 MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 ITA.No. 13 of 2003() -------------------- ITA.317/COCH/1998 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ R.PRATHAP, SUN FOOD CORPORATION, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 13 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard standing counsel appearing for the revenue and Sri.P.Balachandran, senior counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.Three questions raised in the appeal comprises of two issues; onepertaining to order of the Tribunal partly confirming the order of theCIT (appeals) on disallowance of bank interest and remanding thematter for reconsideration with regard to Rs. 8 lakhs, and the otherpertaining to addition of turnover and estimation of income based oninspection report prepared by Sales Tax Department wherein theyfound physical shortage of goods worth Rs. 4.33 lakhs in the beginningof the financial year. So far as the first question is concerned, we donot think there is any scope for interference because Tribunal hasrechecked the actual expenditure on interest and banking charges paidby the assessee and remanded the matter to the Officer. We do not find any substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunalon this issue. The position is not different for the second question alsosince Tribunal for want of any material sustained the addition equal tothe value of stock detected. Since no question of law arises from theorder of the Tribunal on this issue also, we dismiss the departmentalappeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk