Ita/42/2014 Of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadhav v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Calicut

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2015/2ND SRAVANA, 1937 I.T.A.No. 42 of 2014 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.T(SS)A NO.01/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHDATED 07.06.2013. APPELLANT/ASSESSEE/APPELLANT: --------------------------------------------------- MARUTHI BABU RAO JADHAV, PROPRIETOR, DHANALAKSHMI REFINERIES, SHANTHAPURAM LODGE, CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA - 679 322. BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT - 673 001. BY SRI.P.K.R MENON (SR.) STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2015, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.T.O. APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A1ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 25.11.2002. ANNEXURE-A2TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) DATED 08.08.2005. ANNEXURE-A3TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.06.2013. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/- ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. -----------------------------------------------I.T.A.No.42 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2015 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The assessee has filed this appeal impugning the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench inI.T.(SS) A.No.01/Coch/2006 pertaining to the block period01.04.1990 to 15.11.2000. 2.The assessee was engaged in the business of goldand silver refinery at Perintalmanna. There was a search in hisbusiness premises under Sec.133A of the Income Tax Act on15.11.2000. During the search, cash worth Rs.1.3 Lakhs, 18gold biscuits and certain documents were recovered.Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed Annexure-A1 orderwhereby assessment for the block period 01.04.1990 to15.11.2000 was completed. An appeal was filed and byAnnexure-A2 order, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed ofthe appeal, partly allowing the same. I.T.A.No.42 of 2014 3.Further appeal filed by the assessee before theTribunal was dismissed by Annexure-A3 order. It is in thesecircumstances, the assessee has filed this appeal. 4. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for theappellant and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for theIncome Tax Department. 5.The first issue that was canvassed before theTribunal was regarding the assessment of cash balance ofRs.1,30,000/- recovered at the time of search. Theassessment of this amount was confirmed by the Tribunalrejecting the case of the assessee that the manager of hisbrother, who is the proprietor of a Jewellery shop, had handedover the above amount on the day previous to the search.This was rightly rejected stating that a search wassimultaneously conducted in the premises of the brother of theassessee and that nothing was recovered evidencing thepayment claimed by the assessee and that the assessee alsohad not maintained any books of accounts evidencing thereceipt of the amount. 6.The second issue canvassed was regarding theassessment of unexplained investment in gold biscuits. I.T.A.No.42 of 2014 6.The second issue canvassed was regarding theassessment of unexplained investment in gold biscuits. I.T.A.No.42 of 2014 Admittedly, during the search, 18 gold biscuits worthRs.9,36,000/- were recovered. The assessee surrendered asum of Rs.4,66,000/- as his undisclosed income. In so far asthe balance amount of Rs.4,70,000/- is concerned, theassessee claimed that the said amount was received from hisbrother and his brother's source of payment was explained bystating that his brother had withdrawn Rs.3 lakhs from hisJewellery shop and the balance of Rs.1.70 lakhs was realisedby sale of his wife's jewellery. This contention of the assesseewas rejected by all authorities stating that the assessee did notmaintain any books of accounts regarding receipt of Rs.4.70lakhs from his brother. The assessee did not also having anysales tax registration and there was nothing to connect theunexplained investment of Rs.4.70 lakhs was that of hisbrother, or the sale of jewellery. 7.The third issue was relating to assessment of excessexpenditure over receipts. During the search, a note bookcontaining the cash transaction between 03.09.2000 to14.11.2000 was recovered, which showed receipts to the tuneof Rs.73,345/- and total expenditure of Rs.7,02,227/-. Theclaim of the assessee was that the excess amount represented I.T.A.No.42 of 2014 his agricultural income. However, he did not furnish anymaterial to substantiate the receipt of agricultural income andno material regarding the agricultural income was alsoavailable. 8.The assessee raised a further ground that theexcess amount of Rs.6,28,882/- should be treated as loss frombusiness. However, that contention was rightly rejected by theTribunal stating that an amount assessed as investment fromundisclosed source cannot be treated as loss from business.The last contention raised by the assessee was that the incomedetermined for the assessment year 1994-1995 to 1999-2000after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) was less than thenon-taxable limit in each of the assessment years andtherefore are liable to be excluded from undisclosed income.This contention was also rejected by the Tribunal referring toSec.158BB (1)(c) of the Act. 9.All these contentions raised by the assessee havebeen concurrently rejected by the orders of the Authorities,which are based on finding of fact, and we do not see anyquestion of law arising for the consideration of this Court. St/- Therefore the appeal fails and is dismissed. Sd/-ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE //true copy// P.S. to Judge