Ita/144/2015 Of Sri.abdul Khader Mundol v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kasargod

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC&THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2015/22ND ASHADHA, 1937 I.T.A.No. 144 of 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 286/2013 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 14-11-2014 APPELLANT: ----------------- SRI.ABDUL KHADER MUNDOL THEKKIL P.O., KASARGOD BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SMT.O.A.NURIYA RESPONDENT:------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KASARGOD R BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2015,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED30.12.2008 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 28.2.2013. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THEAPPELLANT BEFORE THE ITAT. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 14.11.2014. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.No.144 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2015 Antony Dominic, J. JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel for therespondent. 2. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal in ITA 286/13, insofar as, the Tribunal has confirmedaddition of Rs.22,13,000/-. Contention raised by counsel for the appellantis that the source of these moneys were explained by three NRIs as perAnnexure C document and the Tribunal should have afforded anopportunity to the appellant to examine their persons who have issuedthose letters to prove the source from which these amounts were received.However, appellant has no case that the appellant had either producedthese documents before the Assessing Officer or that even before theAppellate Authorities before whom these documents were produced. Noefforts were made by the appellant to adduce evidence of these personsdespite four opportunities, admittedly, given by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals). It was in such circumstances, the Appellate I.T.A.No.144 of 2015 : 2 : Authority and the Tribunal were constrained to confirm the addition as ordered by the Assessing Officer. In our view, this view taken by theauthorities below does not suffer from any illegality nor does it give riseto any question of law to be considered by this Court. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jes Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE