Ita/1348/2009 Of Sri.p.r.jagadeesh v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Central

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 ITA.No. 1348 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.23/COCH/2000 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN ITA 23/C/2000 --------------------------------------------------------- SRI.P.R.JAGADEESH, WOODLANDS ICE 'N'CREAM, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT IN ITA 23/C/2000 ----------------------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.1348 of 2009 ....................................................................Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, counsel appearing for the appellant.On going through the order of the Tribunal impugned in the appeal andafter hearing the counsel, we do not find any question raised is aquestion of law, much less any substantial question of law. Theassessee, a businessman in jewellery, was subjected to search in hishouse and residential premises. Cash worth Rs.1.9 lakhs and goldornaments weighing 949.78 grams were seized. The assesseecontested the proposal for addition of unexplained cash and gold foundin search under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act on the ground thatcash found was borrowed from his brother who was also a businessmanand the jewellery belongs to assessee's wife. However, it is seen fromthe orders of the Tribunal that they have substantially accepted claim ofownership of jewellery by assessee's wife and except for 149.78 grams,the value of 800 grams of gold was ordered to be deleted, while the Assessing Officer had allowed only 250 grams as belonging toassessee's wife. So far as the assessee's claim that cash found wasborrowed from his brother who was a businessman is concerned, weare unable to accept the contention raised because if money wasaccounted as borrowal from assessee's brother, we see no reason whyit could not be collected through a Cheque or Demand Draft.Consequently we find no ground to deviate from the Tribunal's order.Appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms V.K.MOHANANJudge