Ita/173/2002 Of M/S.kalpaka Bazar v. The Commissioner Of Incometax, Kochi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 ITA.No. 173 of 2002() --------------------- AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/01/2002 IN ITA.755/COCH/1990 ANDC.O.NO.42/COCH/1990 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTOR/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.KALPAKA BAZAR,TOWN HILL ROAD, CALICUT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.M.A.UNNEERIKUTTY BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT-RESPONDENT/REVENUE ----------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALICUT BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008 , THE COURT ON 26/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ------------------------- I.T.A. No. 173 of 2002 ---------------------------------Dated, this the 26[th] day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though several questions are raised by the assessee inthe appeal filed by it, the one issue to be considered is whether theTribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs.10 lakhs. It isseen that assessee, which was a textile merchant, was searched bythe Department and statements of the employees were alsorecorded thereafter. Based on materials collected and statementsrecorded from the employees, the Assessing Officer made anaddition of Rs.40 lakhs towards unaccounted sale of stock. Inappeal the first appellate authority considered the entire evidencesin detail and reduced the addition from Rs.40 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs.On appeal filed by the Department and cross objection by theassessee, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT and rejectedboth the appeal and cross objection. While the Departmentaccepted the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has came up inappeal against the order in the cross objection sustaining theaddition of Rs.10 lakhs. 2.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the ITA No.173/2002 -2- assessee/appellant and learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3.We are of the view that the question decided is only apure question of fact based on evidence. Even though learnedcounsel for assessee submitted that the Tribunal has taken adifferent view in the penalty appeal, we do not think any scope forre-considering the evidence and deciding the matter becauseSection 260A authorises this Court to interfere with orders of theTribunal only on substantial question of law. Since there is noquestion of law arising from the order of the Tribunal much less anysubstantial question of law, this income tax appeal is dismissed asdevoid of any merit. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg