Ita/197/2001 Of M/S.vanaja Textiles Ltd. Trichur v. Dy. Commissioner Of Incometax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 ITA.No. 197 of 2001() --------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN ITA.959/1991 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT / RESPONDENT -------------------- M/S.VANAJA TEXTILES LTD.,KURICHIKARA POST,TRICHUR - 680 028. BY ADV. . SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S) / APPELLANT & RESPONDENT --------------- 1.DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSMT.)SPECIAL RANGE, TRICHUR.SPECIAL RANGE, TRICHUR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN.COCHIN. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 201 & 202 OF 2001 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos.197, 201 & 202 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23[rd] day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. These are appeals filed by the assessee against the common order issued by the Tribunal in three appeals. 2.When the matter was taken up, we are told thatlearned counsel who filed these appeals died, and even thoughhis son requested the appellant assessee to engage anothercounsel, they have not chosen to do so. Junior to the thencounsel for the appellant shifted office and does not want toappear for the appellant. 3.After hearing the learned Standing Counsel for therespondent and after going through the orders impugned, wedo not think there is any need to issue fresh notice to theappellant to engage a counsel and argue the matter, becausein our view, no substantial question of law arises from theorders of the Tribunal. The only addition involved is Rs.2 ITA Nos.197, 201 & 202/2001 -2- lakhs and interest thereon, which represented unexplainedcredits in the name of 9 persons. The Department on enquiryfound that all the creditors are bogus and hence addition wasmade. The Tribunal also sustained the addition made. 4.However, these appeals are filed claiming that theamount belongs to the Managing Director of the Company andhis relatives. However, this claim is against the records in asmuch as credit entries are in the name of bogus persons.Therefore, we do not find any substantial question of lawarising from the orders of the Tribunal or any merit in theclaim of the appellant assessee. Consequently, theseI.T.Appeals are dismissed. Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to theappellant for records. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE)