Ita/96/2011 Of Shri.c.d.bose v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/ 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 ITA.No. 96 of 2011 ( ) ====================== AGAINST ORDER DATED 27/10/2010 IN ITA.164/2005 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT IN ITA. ========================================= 1 C.D.BOSE,PROPRIETOR, CHEMMANNUR FASHION JEWELLERY CHEMMANNUR HOUSE AVENUE ROAD THRISSUR. BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT IN ITA. ========================================== 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM.KOCHI-682 018. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON15-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA NO.96/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A :COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1990TO 12/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE, THRISSUR DATED 29/10/2002 TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-B :COPY OF RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THEINCOME TAX ACT DATED 20/11/2002 ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-C :COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/01/2003 SENT BY THE APPELLANTTO THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE-D :COPY OF RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THEINCOME TAX ACT DATED 22/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-E :COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX(APPEALS) DATED 07/06/2005 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-F :COPY OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DATED27/10/2010 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-G :COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-H :COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/12/2005 ISSUED BY THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 154 AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THEORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPELS) TO THE APPELLANT. //TRUE COPY// jg PA TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T.A.No.96 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 2.After hearing both sides and after going through theorders impugned, we do not find the dispute raised by theappellant involves any substantial question of law because it isonly rejection of assessee's explanation with regard to certainloans due to various creditors. The undisclosed income itselfis computed for block assessment by treating accretion to netwealth during the block period as income. It is seen that theAssessing Officer while making assessment acceptedassessee's claim of debt worth Rs.82,80,483/- comprising ofcredit availed from 4 persons which is over and above specificcredits allowed. The assessee filed rectification applicationclaiming a further deduction of Rs.23,20,000/- as payable to a I.T.A. No.96/2011 -2- party by name M/s.Shree Gokulam Chits. Even though thisamount was part of the credits of Rs.82,80,483/- which wasallowed by the Officer, the Assessing Officer by mistake againallowed this amount. I.T.A. No.96/2011 -2- party by name M/s.Shree Gokulam Chits. Even though thisamount was part of the credits of Rs.82,80,483/- which wasallowed by the Officer, the Assessing Officer by mistake againallowed this amount. 3.Later the Assessing Officer noticed the mistake inthe rectification allowed based on the wrong claim by theassessee. Therefore one more rectification was made toreverse the mistake in the rectification carried out to theoriginal assessment. In the reply, the assessee conceded hismistake but raised certain other claims. The Assessing Officerrectified the assessment on an agreed basis butsimultaneously rejected additional loans claimed by theassessee from 3 other persons for want of convincingevidence. The assessee's appeal against the secondrectification order was allowed by the CIT (Appeals), which wasreversed by the Tribunal on Departmental appeal. 4.So much so, the question is whether there isconvincing evidence with regard to the 3 items of loan So much so, the question is whether there is I.T.A. No.96/2011 -3- additionally claimed by the assessee in rectificationproceedings. The Tribunal after verifying the records andevidence found no basis in the claim. We are of the view thatthe claims were rejected because the assessee could notsubstantiate his claim of debt due to the 3 parties, which is anew claim made in second rectification after completion of theassessment, which itself is not maintainable. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Appeal andthe same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg