Ita/8/2002 Of V.r. Gopalakrishnan v. The Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Alp

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 ITA.No. 8 of 2002() ------------------- ITA.330/1996 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,COCHIN .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANTASSESSEE: --------------------------------------------- V.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN , ATTUMALI HOUSE, THATHAMPILLI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/REVENUE: -------------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 8 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel for thedepartment. The assessing officer for the year 1987-88 assessed thevalue of gold seized by the customs department from the petitionerunder Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, that is unexplained money.The assessee took the stand that he is only a goldsmith and gold seizedby the customs department belonged to others. Eventhough assesseeadduced evidence, claims made by four persons were allowed and thebalance amount which could not be proved as not belonging to theassessee was assessed. When the first appeal filed by the assessee wasunsuccessful, assessee filed second appeal and an additional groundwas raised before the Tribunal stating that assessment under Section69A should be as "business income". The Tribunal found no substancein the ground because the assessee never raised such a contention before the lower authorities, nor could estsablish with evidence that hewas engaged in the business of gold and gold ornaments. We do notfind any substantial question of law arising from the order of theTribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk