Allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin v. Shri.Sudhir Gopi

Kerala HC6 Jul 2017ITA/198/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's deletion of an addition made for undisclosed gold investment. The court held the Tribunal erred in shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue and for failing to require the assessee to substantiate claims of foreign earnings with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Tribunal deleting the addition was set aside, and the questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin Vs Shri.Sudhir Gopi — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2017/15TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶7

ITA.No. 198 of 2010 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IT(SS)A 155/COCH/2004 DT. 12.06.2009 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI P.K.R. MENON, SC

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:

¶13

SRI.SUDHIR GOPI, UNIVERSAL EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL BLDG., S.R.M.ROAD,, KOCHI - 18.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON R1 BY ADV. SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶15

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ITA.No. 198 of 2010 ( )

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER 158BC DT. 26.06.2004 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 11.06.2002.

¶21

ANNEXURE B : COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.10.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).

¶22

ANNEXURE C : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2009 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IT(SS)A NO. 155/COCH/2004.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶28

------------------------------------------I.T.A. No. 198 of 2010 ( )

¶29

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2017.

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Antony Dominic,J.

¶32

In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it impugns the order of the Tribunal in I.T (SS) A. No. 155/Coch/2004 dated 12.06.2009.

¶33

We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue and

¶34

the learned counsel appearing for the assessee.

¶35

It is seen that on 11.06.2002, a search was carried out in the residential premises of the assessee as well as in the business premises of M/s. Universal Institute of Advanced Studies and Research (P) Ltd. The search resulted in the seizure of documents as well as materials, which included gold ornaments. The assessee filed return pursuant to the notice under Section 158BC and accordingly the assessment was completed determining the undisclosed income of the assessee.

¶36

Among various other items, one of the addition was

¶37

`12,29,074/- towards the investment in gold. That addition was

¶38

I.T.A No. 198/2010

¶39

-2-

¶40

sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal deleted the addition and its reasoning contained in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the order reads thus:

¶41

The next ground raised by the assessee is against the addition of Rs.12,29,074/- sustained by the CIT (Appeals) in respect of investment in gold. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee is settled with family in Dubai since 1997 and has travelled to India frequently and brought gold ornaments and the source for the purchase of the gold ornaments were the earnings in Dubai. It is the case of the assessee that the salary certificate supported the contention of the assessee regarding the availability of funds in Dubai and there was no reason to sustain an addition of Rs.12,29,074. The lower authorities have rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not produce evidences.

¶42

On an examination of the issue, we find that the contention of the assessee cannot be brushed aside. The assessee has worked in Dubai and he has been staying in Dubai with his family. The passports of the assessee and his family have proved that he had visited frequently India from Dubai. The Assessing Officer does not have a case that the assessee did not have any income earned in Dubai. The Assessing Officer himself has stated in page 29 of the assessment order that the earnings of the assessee in Dubai could be worked out at Rs.52.5 lakhs approximately. It is a different fact that the entire amount of Rs.52.5 lakhs approximately. It is a different fact that the entire amount of Rs.52.5 lakhs have been appropriated by the Assessing Officer towards assessee's family expenses, children education expenses, etc. But the fact that the assessee had earned income in Dubai is supported by the assessment order itself. We find that the assessee had substantial earnings in Dubai and he had been staying with his family in Dubai and had been visiting India frequently. It is quite obvious and natural to come to a conclusion that the assessee

¶43

I.T.A No. 198/2010

¶44

-3-

¶45

would be bringing gold ornaments from time to time to India. The explanation of the assessee satisfies the reasoning of the ordinary humane prudence. The balance of probability is in favour of the assessee. Taking into consideration the inter-national character of the activities carried on by the assessee and his financial status, we do not find that there is anything to be suspected in the explanations offered by the assessee. Therefore, we find that the addition of Rs.12,29,074/- is not justified. It is deleted.”

¶46

In this appeal, the challenge is limited to the aforesaid

¶47

deletion as ordered by the Tribunal and the questions of law framed are as follows:

¶48

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the

¶49

case:

¶50

(a) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs.12,29,074/- towards investment in gold holding that the balance of probability is in favour of the assessee?

¶51

(b) should not the conclusion based on balance of probability be one in favour of the Revenue, the onus being on the assessee?

¶52

(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case should not the Tribunal have put the assesee to proof?

¶53

(b)did the assessee discharge the burden of proof that lay on him?

I.T.A No. 198/2010

-4-

While, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the Tribunal has misdirected itself by putting the onus on the Revenue, the learned counsel for the assessee, who in his endeavour to sustain the order of the Tribunal, contended that admittedly the assessee was living in Dubai for several years and has having substantial earnings. According to him, it was only natural that the Tribunal has inferred that the gold in question was acquired by the assessee from out of his earnings abroad.

¶58

Having considered the rival submissions made, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the Revenue. A reading of the order of the Tribunal itself would show that while it was the burden of the assessee to prove the source of his acquisition of the gold ornaments, the Tribunal has proceeded putting the onus on the Revenue. That apart, the Tribunal has also ignored the fact that the assessee did not explain or produce any material substantiating his contention that the gold was acquired outside the country or that the acquisition was from out of his earnings. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, according to us, the Tribunal has misdirected

¶59

I.T.A No. 198/2010

¶60

-5-

¶61

itself in appreciating the case of the Revenue and has arrived at the impugned conclusions, which to say the least, are perverse.

¶62

Therefore, the order of the Tribunal to the extent it is impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶63

Accordingly, answering the questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, this appeal is disposed of.

¶64

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶65

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶66

¶67

I.T.A No. 198/2010 -6-

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin v. Shri.Sudhir Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin v. Shri.Sudhir Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Dinesh Textiles Vs State of Kerala

Supra Agencies Vs State of Kerala

Vimala Jyothi Seva Sangham Vs State of Kerala

R.Vijayan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Sony a Vs Superintendent of Police

Rinush P Pillai Vs State of Kerala