Ita/1562/2009 Of Smt.beena Sunny 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 V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 1562 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.85/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------- SMT.BEENA SUNNY, W/O.SUNNY ANTO C., PROP.CHIRAKKEKARAN ANGENCY, P.O.ROAD, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE K. JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.1562 of 2009 ....................................................................Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel appearing for the appellant. On going through theorder of the Tribunal and after hearing the counsel appearing for theappellant, we do not find any question of law, much less anysubstantial question of law, arising from the order of the Tribunal toentertain the appeal. The assessment completed is a best judgmentassessment because the assessee failed to respond to repeated noticesserved on her. Income assessed is nothing but cash found in the Bankof Rs.10 lakhs The assessee offered the explanation that the source ofthe deposit is sale proceeds of 2.538 kilograms of gold obtained as agift from her mother. However, on 19.3.1997 the assessee gave swornstatement to the department that the assessee has no movable orimmovable properties. However, the assessee's case is that the goldwas obtained as a gift on 15.2.2001. The departmental officer wentand recorded the statement of mother of the assessee. She stated that she is living in a rented premises with her husband who is running aStudio and the gold held by her was only 12 sovereigns i.e. only 96grams. In other words, the mother did not confirm the appellant's claimthat she got a gift of 2.538 kgs. of gold from her mother. Theappellant's case was found to be bogus by all the authorities below. Weare in complete agreement with the findings based on statementrecorded from assessee's mother. Even though counsel has argued onquestion Nos.2 and 3, we do not find any substance on the technicalissues raised because on merits the explanation offered by the assesseewas found unacceptable and we have confirmed it. Consequently theappeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge V.K.MOHANANJudge