Income Tax Appeal dismissed. Court held no ground to interfere with Tribunal's order on estimation of restaurant business income. Cross-objection on search warrant legality rejected as not pressed earlier.
Appeal dismissed. Tribunal's order affirmed.
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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930
ITA.No. 20 of 2008() -------------------IT(SS) A.21/COCH/2005 & C NO.55/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
M/S.HOTEL SHAZIYA, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI.K.RASHEED.
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.
ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------I.T. Appeal No. 20 OF 2008
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
The question raised pertains to estimation of income from business in restaurants. After search, the income was estimated by the Assessing Officer at 10% which was reduced to 8% by the first appellate authority and Tribunal in turn to 5%. We do not find any question of law arising from the findings of the Tribunal with regard to estimation of income. Counsel for the assessee has raised a further contention that search was not based on warrant issued in favour of assessee, but warrant was in the name of one C.K.K. Moidu. However, the fact remains that assessee's hotel was searched and assessment is a block assessment based on materials gathered on such search. The assessee did not contest ownership or carrying on business by him. In fact the contention that search was not legal based on warrant was not pressed before the first appellate authority. Therefore the Tribunal did
2
snot allow this ground to be raised as a cross-objection before it. We do not find any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order on this issue which is concluded by the CIT (Appeals), before whom the
assessee did not press the ground. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.
Judge.
kk
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order on the estimation of income from restaurant business should be interfered with.
Whether the cross-objection regarding the legality of search warrant should be allowed.
Whether the appeal is maintainable given that the ground was not pressed before the first appellate authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Hotel Shaziya
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
