Ita/92/2008 Of Alex.c.joseph, Chekkattu House v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Thiruvall

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 ITA.No. 92 of 2008() -------------------- ITA.707/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN ITA ---------------------------------------------- ALEX.C.JOSEPH, CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THADIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN ITA -------------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT DEPT. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -------------------------------------------- I. T. A. No. 92 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant. The appeal is filed against theorder of the Tribunal disposing of assessment appeal by the assesseefor the year 1992-93. The assessee who was the Managing Partner oftwo firms during the previous year did not file any return. A searchwas carried out in the premises under Section 132 of the I.T. Act whenit was found that business transactions of the two firms of which theassessee was Managing Partner, were transacted through the bankaccount of the assessee. Both the firms had converted their business topurchase and sale of imported cars. After collecting information fromthe books of accounts, the assessing officer issued notice to one personby name K.A. Mathew to whom payment of Rs. 25,000/- was recordedin the books of accounts of the assessee's firm towards considerationfor using his passport for import of Mercedes car in June, 1991.However, the said K.A. Mathew appeared before the assessing officer and gave a statement denying any commission having been received byhim. Since books of accounts were found to be unacceptable, theassessing officer estimated that the net profit from business is Rs.75,000/-. On appeal, the Tribunal reduced this income estimated to Rs.50,000/-. Even though assessee's counsel contended that incomeescaping assessment completed under Section 147 is time barred, wedo not find any such contention raised before the Tribunal whiledeciding the issue. An appeal is maintainable before this Court only onsubstantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.Since the issue does not arise from the orders of the Tribunal, wedecline to consider the same. So far as refixation of income isconcerned, we do not find any question of law arising from theTribunal's order. Consequently appeal is dismissed leaving freedom tothe appellant to move the Tribunal in accordance with law if he has acase that the assessment is time barred. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge.