Case LawHigh Court › Itr/5/2006 Of M/S.unity Offset, Kollam v...

Itr/5/2006 Of M/S.unity Offset, Kollam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm

High Court 27 Nov 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Itr/5/2006 Of M/S.unity Offset, Kollam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm
Date of order
27 Nov 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itr/5/2006 Of M/S.unity Offset, Kollam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
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. 5 of 2006() ------------------- RA.196/COCH/1998 IN IT (S & S) A 13/COCHIN/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPLICANT(S): -------------- M/S. UNITY OFFSET, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT 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. -------------------------------------------- I.T.R. No. 5 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel appearing for the applicant and standing counselappearing for the respondent-revenue. Pursuant to search made in thepremises of the assessee, block assessment was made for the periodfrom 1.4.1985 to 4.1.1996. Addition made pertains to investment inthe building over and above accounted expenses and on account ofsales suppression. The total addition was Rs. 2,73,270/-. The assesseeraised objection that unexplained investment arrived at based onvaluation which is made at CPWD rate is excessive and unacceptable.It is seen that Tribunal has accepted it and reduced the addition to Rs.1,73,270/- that is by granting a reduction of Rs. 1 lakh to the assessee.It is against this order that the assessee raised question of law onvaluation pertaining to addition. Since valuation is essentially anestimate, we do not find any ground to interfere with the method adopted by the Tribunal for valuation of unexplained investment.Consequently we answer the question referred in favour of the revenueand against the assesee. We dispose of the reference application as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court andsignature of Registrar-General shall be forwarded to the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan