THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. vs. SAMURAI TECHNO TRADING CO (P) LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938 I.T.A.No.340 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 881/2009 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 15-10-2003 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: SAMURAI TECHNO TRADING CO (P) LTD. OS 59, G.C.D.A. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN 682 031.

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R,R BY ADV. SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.No.340 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 26.3.1997 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.5.1999 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2003 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.381/COCH/1999. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.No.340 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No.381/99 concerning the assessment year 1994-1995 is called in question. 2. Briefly stated, the facts that are relevant for the disposal of this appeal is that the respondent assessee was engaged in consultancy and contract works covering acqua culture and marine products. Their returned income consisted of income from contract work consultancy and other income forming interest on deposits and service charges. It would appear that the business income from the contract for the assessment year was estimated in the assessment proceedings. There was also an addition of Rs.6,44,383/- shown as interest accrued on fixed deposit and Rs.9 lakhs shown as service charges. This addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed

I.T.A.No.340 of 2009 : 2 : by the First Appellate Authority. In the further appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the addition by holding thus: “ 11. But we find that the estimation of profit at 10% made by the assessing officer is on the higher side. To be fair and reasonable, we modify the income from contract at 10% of the total contract receipts. Likewise, we do not find any justification in making a separate addition of Rs.15,44,353/- as “other income”. The assessee had showed interest accrued on Fixed Deposit at Rs.6,44,383/- and service charges to Rs.9,00,000/-. It is to be seen that all these income arose to the assessee out of the activities carried on in the course of contract work and also on the funds blocked in the said business. Therefore, while the income from contract business is computed on the basis of estimate, there is no justification in making a separate addition in the above manner. Therefore, the addition of Rs.15,44,353/- is deleted. The appeal for the assessment year 1994-95 is disposed off in the above line.” 3. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed this appeal, and the main question of law raised is whether the Tribunal was right in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs.15,44,353/- assessed under the head 'other sources'.

I.T.A.No.340 of 2009 : 3 : 4. We heard the Senior Counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the assessee. 5. Having considered the submissions made by both sides, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not given any justifiable reasons for deleting additions in question. The fact that income from contract works has been estimated does not mean that the Assessing Officer cannot add income from other sources, such as interest on fixed deposit and service charges. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. 381/99. The question of law raised is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

JUDGE jes