Ita/292/2002 Of M/S.v.t.m. Builders, Palarivattom 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 ITA.No. 292 of 2002() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IT (S & S) A.16/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------------------- M/S.V.T.M.BUILDERS, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER B.M.VARGHSE. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/REVENUE ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT FOR R SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT FOR R THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 292 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Tribunalconfirming block assessment made on the assessee after search. Searchwas conducted in the residential premises of the partners and pursuantto the same block assessment was made. According to the assessee,since search was not conducted in the office of the firm, blockassessment cannot be made on the firm. We are unable to accept thiscontention because during search of residential premises of thepartners, it was revealed that business was carried on by the firm inwhich searched persons were partners. We do not find any substancein this contention raised by the assessee. The next question raised iswith regard to jurisdiction of the Officer who passed the assessmentorder. According to the assessee, file was transferred by theCommissioner of Income-tax and not by the Board of Direct Taxes and consequently the order is invalid. This issue is covered against theassessee by the decision of this Court in 268 I.T.R. 465. Thereforethere is no justification to interfere with the order on this ground also.Another question pertains to the evidence given by the Manager ofPenta Estate who gave statement to the Investigating team. We do notfind any question of law arising from this issue because Tribunal afterexamining the statement found it as admissible and relevant forassessment. We therefore dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk