Ita.44/11 v. Cit, Madras [114 Itre 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/20TH POUSHA, 1935 ITA.No. 44 of 2011 ( ) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 945/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 05-10-2010 APPELLANT(S):------------- N.K.UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER,NHARAKKATTU KALARICKAL HOUSE,NCC ROAD, PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S):-------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) II, KOZHIKODE. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON10-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------- I.T.A.No. 44 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10[th] January, 2014JUDGMENT Shaffique, J. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Income- Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in T.A.No.945/Coch/2008(2002-03). The short facts of the case is that the appellant, anAstrologer by profession, has filed return of income disclosing areturnover of 2,67,430/-. After claiming various expenses, he₹turned an amount of 1,89,751/- as income from his profession. In₹the statement of affairs as on 31.3.2002, the appellant had shown₹10,00,000/- being contribution from certain persons and claimedthat the said sum has been exempted. The assessing officer didnot accept the said contention. An appeal was filed before theTribunal and the Tribunal concurred with the view expressed bythe lower authorities. 2. In the present appeal, the appellant has raised thefollowing substantial questions of law: ITA.44/11 “(i) In the facts and circumstances of the case,sought not the Tribunal to have held that a sum of 10₹lakhs received as gift from the people of Tamil Naduto the appellant is not taxable under the Act?(ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case,ought not the Tribunal had held that the sum of 10₹lakhs gifted to the appellant was not to be taxed asincome under the Income Tax Act for the relevantperiod.” 3. The main contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of 10,00,000/- was received from₹some persons who had given confirmation letters. In theconfirmation letters they have inter alia indicated that thecontributions were paid by them since they were happy onaccount of the assembly election results of Tamil Nadu in the year2001. As far as the appellant is concerned, he is an Astrologer byprofession and he predicted the election result of their leaderPuratchithalaivi and since the persons mentioned aforesaid weregrateful to the prediction made by the appellant, thesecontributions had been made. The contributions being in the formof gift is not taxable and therefore, the assessing officercommitted error of law in taking into consideration the saidamount as a taxable income. Reference is also made to the ITA.44/11 3 judgments in S.A.Ramakrshnan v. CIT, Madras [114 ITRE 253 (Madras)], CIT v.J.C.Wahal [170 ITR 635 (Allahabad)] and CIT v.Dr.B.M.Sundaravadanam [148 ITR 333(Madras)]. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner ofIncome Tax however contends that no question of law arises forconsideration in the above matter. The assessee originallycontended that the amounts were received from various personsfrom Tamil Nadu and later letters were given stating that anamount of 10,00,000/- was received from seven political leaders.₹Since the assessing officer, appellate authority and the AppellateTribunal considered the entire questions on the factual materialavailable on record and had found that 10,00,000/- is the income₹from business of the assessee, no question of law arises forconsideration. (Madras)], CIT v.J.C.Wahal [170 ITR 635 (Allahabad)] and CIT v.Dr.B.M.Sundaravadanam [148 ITR 333(Madras)]. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner ofIncome Tax however contends that no question of law arises forconsideration in the above matter. The assessee originallycontended that the amounts were received from various personsfrom Tamil Nadu and later letters were given stating that anamount of 10,00,000/- was received from seven political leaders.₹Since the assessing officer, appellate authority and the AppellateTribunal considered the entire questions on the factual materialavailable on record and had found that 10,00,000/- is the income₹from business of the assessee, no question of law arises forconsideration. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for either side,we are of the view that the only question to be considered iswhether the amount of 10,00,000/- is the income from the₹business of the assessee or received by the assessee in the formof gift from the persons mentioned in the confirmation letters. Ona reference to the assessment order, it is clear that the assesseehad originally made a statement that the amount was received ITA.44/11 from several persons from Tamil Nadu. It was later that he wasable to produce the confirmation letters which only indicated thatthe assessee was instrumental in the election victory of certaincandidates and that as a mark of admiration, some amount wasgiven to the assessee. The assessing officer proceeded on thebasis that the assessee had rendered certain services in the formof performing poojas and further procedures. The amounts werepaid when certain candidates were elected in the election asstated by the assessee. This, according to the assessing officer,has to be treated as an income from business. As without renderingservice, there was no question of assessee getting such amountsfrom the persons alleged to have given such amounts to theassessee. The appellate authority also concurred with the said view.The judgments relied upon by the appellant were not applicable tothe factual situation raised in this case on account of the findings inthe assessment order as well as by the appellate authorities. TheTribunal also on a re-appreciation of the evidence as well as thelegal issues involved in the matter concurred with the viewexpressed by the appellate authority as well as the assessingofficer. ITA.44/11 In that view of the matter, we do no think that anysubstantial question of law arises for consideration in the aboveappeal. We confirm the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.Accordingly, there being no merit in the appeal, the same isdismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs