Ita/172/2012 Of T.r Pradeep Warrier v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 ITA.No. 172 of 2012 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IT(SS)A.NO. 27/COCH/2008 FOR THE YEAR2002-03 DATED 30/11/2011 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH .. APPELLANT/RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------- T.R PRADEEP WARRIER, M/S. LAKSHMI HOSPITAL, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------ THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC, IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-12-2013 ALONG WITH ITA.NO. 41/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ITA.NO.172/2012 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A:COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEX.B:COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).TAX (APPEALS). ANNEX.C:COPY OF ORDFER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 30/11/2011 AND PHOTO COPY OF ORDER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss MANJULA CHELLUR C.J. & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = I.T.A. Nos.172 of 2012& 41 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of December, 2013 JUDGMENT Shaffique, J The appellant is the assessee who is a partner of a firmwhich was assessed to income tax. While examining the booksof account of the assessee, it was found that several deposits hadbeen made showing substantial amounts for various financialyears from 1998-99 to 2003-04. The assessee submitted beforethe assessing officer that the withdrawals are from the firmM/s.Lakshmi Hospital. There was a search in the firm’s businesspremises and verification of the seized documents did not revealsuch deposits of peak amounts in the hands of the assesseeherein. It was found that as on 27.11.2001 peak credit isRs.5,96,789/- in excess of the cash available with the firm. Sincethere was such a huge amount in excess of the cash balance inthe account as on the date for which no explanation was offeredby the assessee, it was considered as an undisclosed income of 2 the assessee during the relevant time and accordingly suchincome was added in the hands of the assessee. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). CIT(Appeals) deleted the said addition on account ofthe fact that the said amount was assessed in the firm’s account.The Revenue preferred further appeal before the Tribunal andthe Tribunal, after taking into consideration the factual issuesinvolved in the matter, formed an opinion that the unexplaineddeposits in the assessee‘s Savings Bank account with theErnakulam Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. was shown aswithdrawals from the firm. It was observed that when theamount is unexplained in the hands of assessee and the firmfrom whose funds the deposit in the assessee’s account was saidto be the source, it has to be either brought to tax in the hands ofthe assessee or in that of the firm. It is not in dispute that as faras the firm is concerned the additions are already deleted. Thatbeing the situation this addition has to be made in the accountsof the assessee. In this matter, in so far as the amount has notbeen shown as income of the firm, definitely it has to be treated as undisclosed income of the present assessee. 3. In that view of the matter, we do not find that there is as undisclosed income of the present assessee. 3. In that view of the matter, we do not find that there is any question of law to be decided as the Tribunal has consideredthe factual circumstances involved in the case and had upheldthe assessment. 4. In relation to ITA No.41/2013 it is only an appeal againsta consequential order passed in M.A.No.08/Coch/2012 filed forrectification. As the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed,there is no necessity to consider the present appeal. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. sj19/12