Ita/149/2009 Of P.k.kannan v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Trichur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 ITA.No. 149 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.976/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- P.K. KANNAN, PROP VIJAYA CONSTRUCTIONS, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 149 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counselappearing for the revenue. Of the two questions raised, second questionis covered by our decision I.T.A.No. 1611 of 2009 against the assessee.The next question pertains to two cash credit additions, one forRs.21,53,938/- and the other for Rs. 34,69,900/-. 2. So far as the first item of credit is concerned, when theassessing officer called for particulars of sundry creditors, the assesseehimself brought to the notice of the assessing officer that he did notknow the whereabouts of such creditors and therefore he will not beable to contact such persons. Consequently without any enquirywhatsoever, the assessing officer sustained the addition as it standsdisproved or rather virtually admitted as disproved by the assessee. Sofar as the second item is concerned, the contention of counsel for theassessee is that assessee was systematically withdrawing cash from theaccount and reintroducing the balance withdrawn amount into thebusiness. However, this contention was considered by three lower ITA 149/2009 authorities, and all the three authorities, including the Tribunal,concurrently found against the assessee. Even though counsel for theappellant canvassed for the proposition that only the peak credit shouldbe treated as unexplained income, we are unable to accept thecontention because the amounts introduced are in lakhs ranging fromRs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs. Appellant's case is that cash is withdrawnfrom the account exclusively for various purposes and balance is sohuge amount after meeting the expenses for which cash waswithdrawn. However, we find that the appellant has not even tried toestablish before any of the lower authorities with details ofwithdrawals, each time the item for which expenditure was incurredand the excess available for reintroduction into account. We do notfind any substantial question of law arising from the order of theTribunal pertaining to cash credit additions sustained. Consequentlywe dismiss the assessee's appeal on both the questions raised. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge.