Ita/58/2011 Of V.k.sreenivasan v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 ITA.No. 58 of 2011() -------------------- ITA.151/COCH/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- V.K.SREENIVASAN, OMEGA HOTEL COMPLEX, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, COCHIN-682016. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI SMT.S.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) FOR R SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX FOR R THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011 ALONG WITH ITA 79/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANNEXURES IN ITA. 58/2011ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.22-3-1995ANNEXURE B: -DO- OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DT.12-2-1997 ANNEXURE C: -DO- OF THE CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DT. 25-11-2006ANNEXURE D: -DO- OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIHUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DT. 19-5-2010. JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ I.T.A. Nos:58 & 79 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2[nd ] September, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. These are appeals filed by the assessee challenging ordersof the Appellate Authority issued for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. We have heard counsel for the appellant andhave gone through the orders of the Tribunal. 2. In the first place we have to note that the Tribunal hasadversely commented upon the conduct of the assessee who wasbefore the Tribunal in appeal, a third round for the very sameyears. The Tribunal's clear finding is that assessee, though wasgranted several opportunities at all levels by all authorities,declined to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim whichis mainly to explain source of funds introduced in business. Theadditions of around Rs.17 lakhs (Rupees seventeen lakhs only)made is on account of the assessee's failure to explain the cashintroduced in business by himself, his wife and children. Sincethe cash introduced were not explained, the Income Tax Officer ITA Nos: 58 & 79/2011 proposed to make addition under Section 69 of the Income TaxAct. Though assessee had a specific case that assessee wasengaged in agricultural operations and was earning agriculturalincome, no evidence was produced about the nature of thecultivation, income earned therefrom and tax if any paid underthe Agricultural Income Tax Act to the State Government. Thirdround proceedings are over pertaining to the same years. Evenat the last level the assessee has not produced any evidence toshow that the cash introduced in business was agriculturalincome earned by the assessee or his family members. Whilethe above is the main addition, the remaining additions are onlysmall amounts towards capital gain and estimation of incomefrom hotel business for want of credible accounts. 3. After hearing the petitioner and after going through theorders of the Tribunal we are not satisfied that any substantialquestion of law arises for decision under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act because all the findings pertain to facts andbased on evidence. So far as the main addition under Section69 is concerned, the burden of proof to explain cash introducedin the accounts is on the assessee and when the assessee failedto explain it, in spite of the repeated opportunities granted, the ITA Nos: 58 & 79/2011 3 Tribunal, in our view rightly sustained the addition.Consequently we see no merit in the appeals and the same areaccordingly dismissed. Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/- jj K. SURENDRA MOHANJudge /True copy/ P.S.to Judge