SHRI.C.D.BOSE, PROPRIETOR, CHEMMANNUR V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULA

ITA/96/2011

AI Insights

The case involves C.D. Bose, the proprietor of Chemmannur Fashion Jewellery, who appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The dispute centered on the rejection of certain loan claims made by the appellant during rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer initially accepted some of the appellant's claims but later rectified the assessment upon realizing the mistake. The Tribunal found no convincing evidence for the additional loans claimed by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699592 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: E K NANDAKUMAR; A K NAMBIAR; K MATHAI; P THOMAS; P GOPINATH; PREETHA NAIR
• Keywords: Block assessment; Debt claim; Income Tax; Rectification; Undisclosed income
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" 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 of I.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 ON 15-12-2011 , 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 01/04/1990 TO 12/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR DATED 29/10/2002 TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 20/11/2002 ISSUED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/01/2003 SENT BY THE APPELLANT TO THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE-D : COPY OF RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 22/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 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 DATED 27/10/2010 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 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPELS) TO THE APPELLANT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.A.No.96 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th 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 the orders impugned, we do not find the dispute raised by the appellant involves any substantial question of law because it is only rejection of assessee's explanation with regard to certain loans due to various creditors. The undisclosed income itself is computed for block assessment by treating accretion to net wealth during the block period as income. It is seen that the Assessing Officer while making assessment accepted assessee's claim of debt worth Rs.82,80,483/- comprising of credit availed from 4 persons which is over and above specific credits allowed. The assessee filed rectification application claiming 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 this amount was part of the credits of Rs.82,80,483/- which was allowed by the Officer, the Assessing Officer by mistake again allowed this amount. 3. Later the Assessing Officer noticed the mistake in the rectification allowed based on the wrong claim by the assessee. Therefore one more rectification was made to reverse the mistake in the rectification carried out to the original assessment. In the reply, the assessee conceded his mistake but raised certain other claims. The Assessing Officer rectified the assessment on an agreed basis but simultaneously rejected additional loans claimed by the assessee from 3 other persons for want of convincing evidence. The assessee's appeal against the second rectification order was allowed by the CIT (Appeals), which was reversed by the Tribunal on Departmental appeal. 4. So much so, the question is whether there is convincing evidence with regard to the 3 items of loan I.T.A. No.96/2011 -3- additionally claimed by the assessee in rectification proceedings. The Tribunal after verifying the records and evidence found no basis in the claim. We are of the view that the claims were rejected because the assessee could not substantiate his claim of debt due to the 3 parties, which is a new claim made in second rectification after completion of the assessment, which itself is not maintainable. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg "