SRI GANESHAN V vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2(1)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/17/2016HC KeralaKLHC01026816201604 March 2016Author: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT had considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant (assessee) and had arrived at a reasoned conclusion regarding the factual contentions. The Court found that no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose for consideration under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Income Tax Appeal was dismissed. The specific findings on the additions made by the assessing authority or the justification of loans are not detailed, as the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sri.Ganeshan V, filed a return of income for assessment year 2009-2010. Following a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, assessing a total income of Rs. 31,99,600/-. The assessee contended that a portion of the assessed income was obtained as loans from financial institutions and that the additions made by the assessing authority, including towards interest, were unjustified. The first appellate authority dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) also refused to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority. The present appeal is against the order of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions made by the assessing authority, including towards interest, were justified based on the facts, particularly concerning loans claimed to be obtained from financial institutions (Section 143(3) read with Section 147). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that a part of the income assessed was obtained as loans from financial institutions and that the additions made by the assessing authority were not justified by the facts. The additions towards interest were also impugned as being excessive. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the ITAT or the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937 ITA.No. 17 of 2016 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 100/COCH/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 18-07-2014 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: --------------------------- SRI GANESHAN V POOJA, CHERUVANNUR, FEROKE KOZHIKODE BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH SMT.O.A.NURIYA KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2(1) KOZHIKODE BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03- 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = I.T.A No.17 of 2016 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4 th day of March, 2016

JUDGMENT Anu Sivaraman,J. 1.This appeal is directed against Annexure C order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant had filed a return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010. Pursuant to a survey conducted in the premises in terms of Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of that Act and a total income of Rs.31,99,600/- was assessed and a demand was raised. The assessee claimed that a part of the income assessed was obtained as loans from financial institutions and that the additions made by the assessing authority were not justified by the facts. The additions towards interest were also impugned as being excessive. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on these points against which the assessee had gone in appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT considered the contentions raised and refused to interefere with the order of the first appellate authority.

I.T.A No.17 of 2016 2 From a reading of the order under challenge, it is clear that the ITAT has considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant and had come to a reasoned conclusion as regards the factual contentions urged by the appellant. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. In the above circumstances, the IT Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge Anu Sivaraman, Judge

sj4/3 // P.A. to Judge

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →