The High Court dismissed an Income Tax Appeal regarding the assessee's claim that seized gold represented unexplained business income. The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the additional ground was raised for the first time without prior basis or sufficient evidence.
The appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 ITA.No. 8 of 2002() ------------------ITA.330/1996 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,COCHIN ....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANTASSESSEE:
V.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN , ATTUMALI HOUSE, THATHAMPILLI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
I.T.A. No. 8 OF 2002
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J.
Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel for the department. The assessing officer for the year 1987-88 assessed the value of gold seized by the customs department from the petitioner under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, that is unexplained money. The assessee took the stand that he is only a goldsmith and gold seized by the customs department belonged to others. Eventhough assessee adduced evidence, claims made by four persons were allowed and the balance amount which could not be proved as not belonging to the assessee was assessed. When the first appeal filed by the assessee was unsuccessful, assessee filed second appeal and an additional ground was raised before the Tribunal stating that assessment under Section 69A should be as "business income". The Tribunal found no substance in the ground because the assessee never raised such a contention
2
before the lower authorities, nor could estsablish with evidence that he was engaged in the business of gold and gold ornaments. We do not find any substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.
Judge.
kk
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessee was engaged in the business of gold and gold ornaments to support an additional ground raised for the first time that assessment under Section 69A should be as business income.
Whether the first additional ground raised before the Tribunal had any substance given it was never before raised before the lower authorities.
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.R. GOPALAKRISHNAN
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, ALAPPUZHA
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
