Itr/155/1998 Of M.a.unneerikutty,Calicut v. The Commr. Of Income-Tax,Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 ITR.No. 155 of 1998() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RA.187/1996 IN ITA 998/COCH/90 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPLICANT(S): -------------- SHRI. M. A. UNNERIKUTTY, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS TAX REFERENCE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in O.P.No. 19693 of 1997, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for ourdecision: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theTribunal is right in confirming the order of theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), upholding thereassessment under section 147(a) of the I.T. Act for theassessment year 1971-72? 2. The case of the assessee is that income escaping assessment made under section 147(a) of the I.T. Act is beyond the jurisdiction of the Officer because the reason for reopening of assessment isunaccounted purchase of copra for Rs. 59,392/-. The assessee's casewas that stock was declared and so much so all material facts weredisclosed by him. However, the finding of the Tribunal is that theassessee accounted the stock as not belonging to him, but as belongingto agriculturists, who had left copra with him for sale. However, the assessee could not prove that the copra really represents that ofagriculturists and not copra purchased and held as stock by him. In thisview of the matter, Tribunal held that the assessee has not disclosed fulland true facts in accounts and so much so reopening under Section 147(a) is justified. We do not find anything wrong in the finding of theTribunal, because when assessee puts up specific case that copra heldas stock belongs to others, namely, agriculturists, it is for him toproduce evidence and agreements disclosing the terms and conditionson which such copra is taken from agriculturists and held as stock withhim. Tribunal rightly held that quantity of copra held by the assesseewas camouflaged in the accounts as goods belonging to agriculturistswhich the assessee could not prove with evidence. When assesseemakes misrepresentation that the stock held by him belongs to others,which he fails to prove, it is a case of suppression of facts and so muchso, there was no full disclosure of facts on his side. In thecircumstances, we uphold the finding of the Tribunal and answer thequestion referred against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and signature of Registrar-General shall be forwarded to the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk