Ita/3/2011 Of Sri.v..r.sreekumar v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA,1940 ITA.No. 3 of 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 304/2009 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 22-06-2009 APPELLANT/S: SRI.V..R.SREEKUMARM/S.SNEHA FUEL LAND, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT/S:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL, TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAXSRI.P.K.R.MENONSR.COUNSEL GOITAXES OTHER PRESENT: SRI PKR MENON SR COUNSEL FOR GOI TAXES,SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Vinod Chandran, J The assessee is in appeal from the order of the Tribunal raising the following question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was correct inconfirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/-and is not the finding perverse for reasonof non-consideration of relevant facts? 2. The assessment of the assessee for therelevant assessment year 1999-2000 was taken upunder Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.During the course of assessment it was found thatthe assessee had paid Rs.10,00,000/- to one RajaMukundan admittedly for obtaining Power of Attorneywith respect to a property. The assessee had also sold the property and had filed returns showing thecapital gains. However, there was no explanationas to the amounts invested by the assessee and paidto the said Raja Mukundan. 3. The assessee produced a letter from RajaMukundan dated 27.03.2006 that he had receivedRs.10,00,000/- from Wariampath Sreekumar and hadthus conceded the rights and possession of theproperty having 50 cents situated in MannarkadTaluk by virtue of the Power of Attorney. TheAssessing Officer found the explanation to be notsatisfactory. The First Appellate Authority as perAnnexure B order enhanced the addition toRs.15,91,650/-. This was on account of theAssessing Officer having submitted a report dated20.08.2007 before the First Appellate Authority asto the information received that the actual paymentwas of Rs.15,91,650/-.The First Appellate Authorityhad made the addition after issuing notice to the assessee. 4. A second appeal to the Tribunal wasdisposed of by Annexure C Order. The Tribunalnoticed the explanation of the assessee thatRs.5,91,650/- is by way of drawings from the bankaccount of the assessee's wife and her father. Theexplanation was asserted to be acceptable to theAssessing Officer and the Tribunal hence deletedthat portion. We find that the issue with respectto Rs.5,91,650/- as seen from the First AppellateAuthorities order was discovered only afterAnnexure A order. The submission of the assesseethat the Assessing Officer was satisfied of theexplanation does not arise, since this was not anissue arising at the time of assessment. However wewould not go into that since there is no appealfiled by the Department. 5. On the issue of addition ofRs.10,00,000/- we do not find any question of law arising and on facts it has to be stated that thereis absolutely no explanation offered by theassessee. The assessee merely produced a letter ofthe person who executed the Power of Attorneyshowing that he had received the amounts fromanother. There were no bank details or the otherparty confirmation produced before the Department.In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmityin the order of the Tribunal. We answer thequestion as to perversity against the assessee andin favour of the Revenue. IT appeal would stand dismissed. No orderas to costs. Sd/- K. Vinod Chandran, Judge jma Sd/-Ashok Menon, Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2005OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANNEXURE-B arising and on facts it has to be stated that thereis absolutely no explanation offered by theassessee. The assessee merely produced a letter ofthe person who executed the Power of Attorneyshowing that he had received the amounts fromanother. There were no bank details or the otherparty confirmation produced before the Department.In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmityin the order of the Tribunal. We answer thequestion as to perversity against the assessee andin favour of the Revenue. IT appeal would stand dismissed. No orderas to costs. Sd/- K. Vinod Chandran, Judge jma Sd/-Ashok Menon, Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2005OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2007OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2009IN ITA NO.304/COCH/2008 OF THE IT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE-DTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/07/2008OF THE AO. ANNEXURE-E.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2010IN MP NO. 181/COCH/2009OF THE IT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE-FTRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/09/10 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.