Ita v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/15TH PHALGUNA 1933 ITA.No. 57 of 2011 ( ) ----------------------AGAINST ORDER IN ITA.535/COCH/2008 DATED 31/05/2010 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT:----------------------- M/S. KALLIYATH WIRE DISTRIBUTORS, OPP. R.K. MISSION HIGH SCHOOL, PANNIANKARA CALICUT. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2012, ALONG WITH ITA.5/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A :COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1991-92 DATED25/03/1994 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-B :COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/01/2008 FOR THE YEAR 1991-92ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-C :COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN DATED 31/05/2010 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. // TRUE COPY // jg PA TO JUDGE. .................................................................... I.T.A.Nos.57 of 2011 & 5 of 2012 .................................................................... Dated this the 5[th] day of March, 2012. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Shri.Anil D.Nair, learned counsel for the appellant, and learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. After hearing both sides and after going through therecords including the Tribunal's order, what we notice is thatquestions raised are purely based on findings on factsrecorded by the Tribunal. The first question relates to relianceof documents seized from the employee's residence at thetime of search. The person searched was an employee andvouchers with name of the appellant were seized, based onwhich volume of business and profit were estimated. We donot find any question of law arising from the order of theTribunal on this issue. The additional issue raised in ITANo.5/2012 pertains to disallowance of purchase claimed to theextent of 6 MT from another company, which againchallenged by the appellant being only findings on facts, does ITA Nos.57/2011 & 5/2012 not give rise to any substantial question of law. We, therefore,dismiss both the appeals. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg