K.P.DAMODARAN NAIR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/76/2015HC KeralaKLHC01025477201503 June 2015Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no grounds were made out for interference with the order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had concluded that the assessee could not explain the inflow into his bank account from various sources. Therefore, the factual findings regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld. However, the Tribunal had found in favor of the assessee regarding one addition related to diversion of amounts for non-business considerations, as noted in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's order. The High Court was satisfied that the case did not warrant interference with the Tribunal's decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, K.P. Damodaran Nair, filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated December 12, 2014. This order pertained to the assessment year 2007-2008. The ITAT had partly confirmed an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which in turn confirmed the Assessing Officer's order. The Assessing Officer had made additions totaling Rs. 2,59,330/- to the assessee's income. The case was selected for scrutiny after processing the return under Section 143(1), and the Assessing Officer made additions for credits found in the assessee's bank account, mostly through bank transfers. The assessee contended that he did not produce satisfactory evidence to substantiate his claims before the Assessing Officer, leading to the final assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the assessee's case, which is a question of law and fact turning on the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that both the appellate authorities confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer without properly and legally appreciating the case put forth by him. The assessee relied on various documentary evidence, including confirmation letters, bank statements, and certificates from third parties (Annexures D to J). Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, it is implied that the revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities, as the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 142(2),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/13TH JYAISHTA, 1937 I.T.A.No. 76 of 2015 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 288/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 12-12-2014 APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: -------------------------------- K.P.DAMODARAN NAIR 35/1872, SABARI, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025 BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SRI.R.SUDHIR SMT.MANJU RAJAN SRI.P.P.NARAYANAN SRI.K.S.MENON (K) RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), ERNAKULAM 682 018 R BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.No. 76 of 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/3/2014 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/3/2014 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2014 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2009 ADDRESSED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 24.12.2009 AND THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK. ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 1.5.2O06 AND THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/11/2009 AND CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 22/2/2009 FROM C.G.SREELATHA. ANNEXURE H: TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 14.12.2007 FROM K.P.GANGADHARAN NAIR. ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.12.2009 ISSUED BY SYNDICATE BANK AND CHEQUES DATED 5.3.2007. ANNEXURE J: TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT DATED 15.12.2009 FROM THE APPELLANT. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.No.76 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2015 JUDGMENT Shaji P. Chaly, J. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.No.288/14 dated 12.12.2014 pertaining to the assessment year 2007-2008, by which the learned Appellate Tribunal has partly confirmed the order of the 1st Appellate Authority, which confirmed the order of the assessing authority making addition of an amount of Rs.2,59,330/-. 2. Brief facts are thus: After processing the return under Section 143 (1) of the I.T.Act, the case was selected for scrutiny under Section 142(2) and the Assessing Officer made various additions being credits found in the bank account of the appellant, which all, except one credit, were by bank transfers. 3. Even though the Assessing Authority provided sufficient opportunity, appellant did not produce satisfactory evidence so as to substantiate the claims made by him before the Assessing Authority

I.T.A.No.76 of 2015 : 2 : against inclusion of the amounts proposed by the income tax officer and thereupon the assessment was finalised as proposed. The 1st appellate authority also confirmed the order of the assessing authority. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the Revenue. 5. The grievance of the appellant herein is that both the Appellate Authorities confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating the case put forth by the appellant in a proper and legal manner. 6. The learned Appellate Tribunal, after considering all the contentions raised by the appellant, came to a categoric conclusion that the appellant could not explain the inflow into his bank account from various sources and therefore the factual findings with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Authority cannot be interfered with by it, except one addition made by the Assessing Authority against diversion of amounts for non-business considerations which was found in favour of the appellant in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

I.T.A.No.76 of 2015 : 3 : 7. We have considered the questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum, contentions put forth by the counsel for the appellant and materials on record and we are satisfied that no grounds have been made out for our interference in the order of the appellate Tribunal invoking the jurisdiction conferred on us under Section 260(A) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE SD/- SHAJI P. CHALY

JUDGE jes

More judgments on Section 142(2)

All 83 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →