Ita/1670/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. R.ajith Kumar
High Court
26 Nov 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1670/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. R.ajith Kumar
Date of order
26 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/1670/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. R.ajith Kumar, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931
ITA.No. 1670 of 2009()
----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/01/2009 IN COCH IN
ITA.686/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT
---------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
-------------------------
SHRI.R.AJITH KUMAR,
KUMAR JEWELLERY,NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN
SMT.C.K.SHERIN
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The questions raised in the appeal filed by the revenue pertain toadditions deleted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by theTribunal. After hearing both sides and after going through theTribunal's order, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orderof the Tribunal because on facts, the Tribunal found that the cashcredits in the name of the wife of the assessee and two other personsstand proved with evidence. So far as the other item of addition isconcerned, the assessee's explanation that he admittedly hadagricultural income is accepted by the two lower authorities. Thedepartment does not dispute the ownership of 19 acres of rubberplantation owned by the family of the assessee. In the circumstances,we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of theTribunal. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.
(V.K. MOHANAN)
Judge.
kk
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.