Ita/20/2008 Of Hotel Shaziya v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 ITA.No. 20 of 2008() -------------------- IT(SS) A.21/COCH/2005 & C NO.55/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- M/S.HOTEL SHAZIYA, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI.K.RASHEED. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------I.T. Appeal No. 20 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised pertains to estimation of income frombusiness in restaurants. After search, the income was estimated by theAssessing Officer at 10% which was reduced to 8% by the firstappellate authority and Tribunal in turn to 5%. We do not find anyquestion of law arising from the findings of the Tribunal with regard toestimation of income. Counsel for the assessee has raised a furthercontention that search was not based on warrant issued in favour ofassessee, but warrant was in the name of one C.K.K. Moidu. However,the fact remains that assessee's hotel was searched and assessment is ablock assessment based on materials gathered on such search. Theassessee did not contest ownership or carrying on business by him. Infact the contention that search was not legal based on warrant was notpressed before the first appellate authority. Therefore the Tribunal did snot allow this ground to be raised as a cross-objection before it. Wedo not find any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order on thisissue which is concluded by the CIT (Appeals), before whom theassessee did not press the ground. We therefore dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk