Ita/40/2000 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. Shri.t.n.mohan

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 THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 ITA.No. 40 of 2000() -------------------- ITA.864/COCH/1995 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: ----------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: ------------- SRI.T.N.MOHAN,THOTTATHIL HOUSE,THOTTAHIL LANE,TRICHUR-5. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, ALONG WITH ITA NO.45 OF 2000, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... ....................................................................Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The respondent-assessee is a business man. During the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 the Assessing Officer noticed discrepancy in theaccounts. Addition is made for both the years representing unexplainedcapital accretion. However, the assessee explained it as attributable to kuriamount received by him. According to the department, there is duplicationin as much as petitioner brought the kuri amount in the balance sheet in theasset side and thereafter made a further addition towards kuri receipt. TheTribunal verified the accounts and allowed the claim against which theseappeals are filed. We do not find any substantial question of law is involvedjustifying interference in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.The appeals are accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge