Ita/200/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Incometax, Tvm v. K. Chandra Babu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 ITA.No. 200 of 2002 --------------------------- I.T.(S & S) A. NO.14/COCH/1999 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH. .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, G.O.I(TAXES) ADV.MR.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR I.T. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------- K. CHANDRA BABU, “LETHA HUT”, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.VINOD CHANDRAN. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ====================================== I.T.A.No.200 of 2002 ======================================Dated this the 8[th] day of January 2009 JUDGMENT The appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunaldisposing of block assessment completed under Section 158BCread with section 158 BD of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. We have heard the learned standing counsel appearing forthe appellant and the learned counsel appearing for therespondent. 3. The respondent was an employee of the State TreasuryDepartment. Based on the search conducted in the premises ofthe respondent's relative, notice was issued proposing blockassessment on the respondent. It is seen that except for one yearfor all the other nine years in the block period, the departmenthad no case that the assessee had any income other than thesalary income which is below the taxable rate. Therefore thedispute pertains to only one year that too pertaining to the saleof property. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim becausethe only evidence of receipt is the one gathered by thedepartment from the books maintained by the assessee's relative.The assessee has furnished documentary evidence including bank I.T.A.No.200 of 2002 2 records pertaining to sale proceeds received by him on the sale ofthe property. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the datagathered during the inspection was sufficient to assess therespondent on this income. We do not find any substantialquestion of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.Consequently the I.T.Appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/