K.A.RAUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 55 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 504/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF AGED 62 YEARS SHELTER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T.USHA ROAD, CALICUT.

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682 031.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.60/2018, 52/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -2-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 60 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 505/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF AGED 62 YEARS SHELTER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T. USHA ROAD, CALICUT

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI – 682013

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -3-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 52 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 502/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF, AGED 62 YEARS SHELTER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T. USHA ROAD, CALICUT.

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682 013.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -4-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 57 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 495/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF AGED 62 YEARS SHELTER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T. USHA ROAD, CALICUT.

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682013.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -5-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 63 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 494/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUG AGED 62 YEARS SHELTER JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T. USHA ROAD, CALICUT

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON SREEJITH R.NAIR K.KRISHNA

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI 682013

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -6-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 56 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 493/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF AGED 62 YEARS SHELTHER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T. USHA ROAD, CALICUT

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682013

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -7-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 54 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 506/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF AGED 62 YEARS SHELTER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P. T. USHA ROAD, CALICUT.

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON SREEJITH R.NAIR K.KRISHNA

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682013

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -8-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 49 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 501/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF, AGED 62 YEARS AGED 64, SHELTER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T. USHA ROAD, CALICUT.

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON SREEJITH R.NAIR K.KRISHNA

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682 013.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -9-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 51 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 507/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF AGED 62 YEARS JAYANTHI NAGAR P.T.USHA ROAD CALICUT

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOCHI-682013

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -10-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 ITA NO. 58 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 503/2015 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S:

K.A.RAUF, AGED 62 YEARS SHELTER, JAYANTHI NAGAR, P.T.USHA ROAD, CALICUT.

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682 013.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.55/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -11-

J U D G M E N T

[ITA Nos.55/2018, 60/2018, 52/2018, 57/2018, 63/2018, 56/2018, 54/2018, 49/2018, 51/2018, 58/2018]

S.V. Bhatti, J.

We have heard Adv. Meera V. Menon and Standing Counsel Mr Jose Joseph for parties. 2. K.A. Rauf, resident of Calicut/assessee, is the appellant, and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin/Revenue, are the parties in the batch of appeals. The assessee, being aggrieved by the common order dated 23.04.2018, filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). 3. The assessee is engaged in the production of centrifugal latex and the manufacturing of tread rubber. He was stated to have been running a few businesses along with his wife and two daughters. On 05.11.2009, the Revenue carried out a search under

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -12-

Section 132 at the residence or business premises of the assessee. Steps under Section 133A were undertaken at the residences of the employees or individuals concerned with the assessee and the businesses of the assessee/associates. The Revenue, basing upon and/or referring to the documents/material recovered in search and seizure, initiated proceedings under Section 153A of the Act for assessment for the period 2004-05 to 2010-11 against the assessee, the wife of the assessee, his two daughters, and employees working with the assessee at the relevant point of time. On 31.12.2011, the Assessing Authorities completed the assessment for the slab assessment years. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, ‘CIT(A) ) and granted part relief to the assessee vide order dated 16.06.2015. The order dated 16.06.2015 to the extent aggrieved the Revenue and assessee filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench,

ITA No.55/2018 and con.cases -13-

Cochin (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue were disposed of through the impugned judgment. Notices under Section 153A for the slab years had taken up a few disallowances and further added to the assessee’s income. Disallowances or additions present in more than one assessment year and the same circumstances, consideration, and conclusion are stated in the orders under appeal. 5. The learned advocates appearing for the assessee and the Revenue stated that the issues between the parties could be taken upon the nature of the disallowance/additions; the findings rendered could also be applicable to other matters. Ten appeals were disposed of by the common judgment. I.T.A No.55/2018 has been treated as a representative appeal for appreciating the circumstances leading to the filing of the cases. We find it useful to tabulate the details as follows:

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -14-

Sl No Assessment Year I.T Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I.T.Appeal before the High Court of Kerala Disallowance of agricultural income Disallowance of investment in Tristar investments Disallowance of Agricultural rent from lands in Maharashtra Loan to Mohan Raj

Amounts credited in the Bank accounts of the employees of Assessee Difference in the valuation of factory building Purchase value estimation 1 2004-05 ITA No. 501/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.49/2018 √ X X X X X X 2 2005-06 ITA No. 502/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.52/2018 √ X X X X X X 3 2006-07 ITA No. 503/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.58/2018 √ √ X X √ X X 4 2007-08 ITA No. 504/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.55/2018 √ √ √ X √ X X 5 2008-09 ITA No. 505/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.60/2018 √ X √ X √ X X 6 2009-10 ITA No. 494/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.63/2018 √ X X X √ X X 7 2010-11 ITA No. 507/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.51/2018 √ X X X √ X X 8 2007-08 ITA No. 495/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.57/2018 X X X √ X X X 9 2008-09 ITA No. 493/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.56/2018 X X X √ X X X 10 2009-10 ITA No. 506/Coch/2015 I.T.A No.54/2018 X X X √ X X X

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -15-

(a) Disallowance of Agricultural income. 6. Adv. Meera V. Menon formulated the following substantial question of law concerning the agricultural income decided by the order under appeal: “Whether the orders under appeal insofar as agricultural income is concerned suffer from the error of law and non-application of mind?”. 6.1. The assessee claimed agricultural income from agricultural properties situated in the Sreerange, Maharashtra and Pang, Malappuram district. Insofar as agricultural properties situated in Maharashtra are concerned, the assessee has claimed Rs. 32,62,500/- in cash flow statement as having received from a few lessees doing agricultural operation in Maharashtra. The other income is from Pang, Malappuram district. The assessee, to establish the authenticity of the increase in the cash flow statement, relied on a few notarised lease agreements between the assessee and the lessees. The notarized lease agreements for the following reasons namely

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -16-

that the notary advocate who had affixed the notary seal and stamp diluted the genuineness of the lease arrangement and also stated that the notarized lease agreements are not meant to be presented before any authorities. For distinct and separate reasons, the Assessing Officer rejected the details in the cash flow statement on agricultural income in Maharashtra and treated the same as income from other sources. The Tribunal examined each one of the circumstances in para 19 and found that the xerox copy and self-serving statements do not discharge the onus for accepting the claim of the assessee. 6.2 Under the same head, the Assessing Officer examined income from agricultural income amounting to Rs.5,76,000/- from the agricultural land in Malappuram district. The assessee claimed Rs.5,76,000/- as having been earned from the agricultural land in Malappuram district. The assessee was given the opportunity to establish the agricultural income receipts amounting to Rs.5,76,000/. - Except for the assertion, the assessee

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -17-

could not discharge the onus of establishing that the assessee earned Rs. 5,76,000/- from the land situated in the Pang, Malappuram district. The Assessing Officer, therefore, restricted the claim to Rs.2,00,000/- and added the balance amount of Rs.3,76,000/- as income from other sources. The finding is confirmed by CIT(A) and the Tribunal. 7. Adv. Meera V. Menon contends that the extent of land is a very crucial and vital circumstance for appreciating whether the details furnished in the cash flow statement under the head agricultural income is correct or not. The blanket refusal to examine the details resulted in irregular or addition of income. 8. On the contrary, the Standing Counsel, Mr Jose Joseph, states that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are available, and no exception could be taken on the finding recorded on this behalf. There is no question of law, much less substantial question for consideration under Section 260A of the Act.

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -18-

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -19-

disallowance of agricultural income also arises in I.T.A Nos. 49/2018, 52/2018, 58/2018, 55/2018, 60/2018, 63/2018, 51/2018. The question on the disallowance of agricultural income in these appeals as well, for the above discussion, is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. (b) Investment in M/s.Tristar investments, Bangalore. 10. The question of law formulated at the time of hearing reads as follows: “Whether the Authorities and the Tribunal are justified for including Tristar investments in the computation of the assessee or not?”. 10.1 The case of the Revenue is that during the search of the business premises of M/s. Nilambur traders, a document regarding an investment made by the assessee in Tristar Investments and the amount received back were found. The discovery leads to a survey under section 133A of the business activities of M/s. Tristar Investments and recovered. The Department recorded the statement of one Thomas Perincherry,

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -20-

and in the statement, Thomas Perincherry disclosed the cash investment of Rs.70,00,000/- made by the assessee and the assessee has a 35% share in the said business. Therefore, from the documents seized both from Nilambur Traders and Tristar Investments, the Revenue proposed to add the said Rs.70,00,000/- to the computation of assessment. The assessee denied the investment or involvement with Tristar Investments. The reply was rejected, and the amount has been added to the computation of the assessment. 11. The Advocate appearing for the assessee contends that except for the statement of Thomas Perincherry, extracted books of accounts discovered from the business premises of the Nilambur Traders/Tristar Investments, there is no evidence attributing un- disclosed investments by the assessee. On mere conjuncture and surmise, a substantial amount is added as income from other sources by the assessee. 12. Mr Jose Joseph refers to the presumption available

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -21-

under Section 132 of the Act for all the documents seized from the custody of the assessee. The statement of accounts refers to the contribution by respective partners for the work completed at Tristar Investments. The source of seizure is from the assessee or the premises with which the assessee is concerned. The name of the assessee is stated as one of the contributors of partners. There is no detail in any of the books otherwise regularly maintained by the assessee upon the subject investments. In the absence of the material explaining the custody of statements, the Assessing Officer is justified in including the said investments to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded the following findings: “The material seized from the business premises of the assessee (CHN-14/Nilambur/28) is more than that of Tristar Investments. This also confirm that the assessee has contributed towards this firm based on an agreement which is known to the assessee and Shri.Perincherry only. But this being the facts the assessee's name is not seen in the partnership deed executed by the M/s. Tristar Investments. In the sworn statement recorded from the employee of the assessee Sri K Jafar has stated that "Sri Suraj Rangappa, Sri Paul Tom Suraj and the assessee are the partners of this firm the profit shared in the ration 2%, 40% and 35% respectively. Certain documents relating to this firm collected from Bangalore which were available

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -22-

in this office were seized by the Department during the course of search marked as CHN-14/28. Certain accounts copied from their office at Bangalore are available in Computer. The name shown as Paul-2 is actually the assessee. The total investment made by the assessee in this firm is Rs.70,00,000/- during the financial year 2005- 06 and 2006-07. The details are available in page no.40,45 & 48 of item No. CHN-14/28" When both the partner of the firm and the employee of the assessee are confirmed the investment of the assessee in M/s. Tristar Investment (Hint Pub). Bangalore. The denial of investment by the assessee is not acceptable and the assessee has not shown this investment in his cash flow statement therefore the investment made by the assessee during the period relevant to the Asst Year 2007-08 is Rs. 3,00,000/- and the same is added to the total income of the assessee.”

The findings of the Tribunal held as follows: “13.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The main contention of the Ld. AR is that there was seized material in page no. 40, 45, 48 referred as CHN-14/28. It also showed that the assessee has contributed toward Tristar Investments, Bangalore based on an agreement which was known to the assessee and Shri Thomas Perinchery only. Further in the sworn statement recorded from the employee of the assessee Shri K. Jaffar, it was stated that "Shri Suraj Rangappa, Shri Paul Tom Suraj and the assessee were the partners of this firm and the profit shared in the ratio 2%, 40% and 35% respectively. Certain documents relating to this firm collected from Bangalore which were available in this office were seized by the Department during the course of search marked as CHN-14/28. Certain accounts copied from their office at Bangalore were available in computer. The name shown as Paul-2 was actually the assessee. The total investment made by the assessee in this firm was Rs.70,00,000/- during the financial year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The details were available in page no. 40, 45 and 48 of item No. CHN-14/28. When both the partner of the firm and the employee of the assessee confirmed the investment of the assessee in M/s. Tristar Investments

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -23-

(Hint Pub), Bangalore, the denial of investment by the assessee is not acceptable and the assessee had not shown this investment in the cash flow statement, therefore the investment made by the assessee during the period relevant to the assessment year 2006 07 is Rs.67,00,000/- and the same is added to the total income of the assessee. Further, the bank account of Shri Jaffar also shows income received from such investments. Hence we have no hesitation in confirming the addition. Thus this ground of appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 is rejected.”

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -24-

Investment arises in ITA No.58 of 2018 also. The said question is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. (c) Amounts credited in the bank accounts of the assessee’s employees. 14. The question of law raised in the course of argument reads as follows: “Whether the Assessing Authority was right in law in holding that the credits in the bank accounts of the employees represent a share of profit of the appellant in the above partnership concern when the firm itself had not made profits, as per assessment orders passed in its case?” 14.1 From the documents seized in the search, the Revenue noted that huge amounts are seen credited in the bank accounts of Mr K.C Thomas, Mr Sathar, and Mr K.Jaffer, who were the employees in the business establishments run by the assessee. The Revenue recorded sworn statements from these employees. The employees said that the amounts credited in their personal bank accounts belong to the assessee. The head

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -25-

under which the amounts are received profits from Tristar Investments, Bangalore. Confronted with the documents and the statements of his employees, the reply given by the assessee is that, at the distance of the time, when an enquiry was taking place, he was unable to recollect the details. He was also stated that the amount represents proceeds suppressed by M/s. K.A Treads, and the amounts have been received back/ for the use of the assessee. The assessee offered these amounts and claimed to take the peak of the amounts and apply the gross profit. The Assessing Authority rejected the alternative explanation by the assessee and treated Rs. 10,00,000/- as an unproven loan and added to the assessee's total income. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's case on the grounds that there is no evidence in support of the information offered by the assessee. The addition of Rs.10,00,000/- is justifiable. They have precisely summed up that the assessee gave an evasive reply and alternatively desired to calculate the peak of the amounts and

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -26-

apply the gross profit. There is no reason to be shown beyond the narrative or any infirmity in the approach. Consequently, this Court would be justified in sustaining the findings recorded on this behalf. 15. Adv. Meera V Menon argues that the firms from which the amount is stated to have been transferred did not earn a profit, and the assumption that the amount credited towards the assessee's share is unsustainable. 16. The learned Standing Counsel replies to the argument by saying that the recipient of the amount explained his nature and circumstance in which substantial amounts are transferred to the credit of those employees. The genuineness or otherwise of the accounts of those firms cannot constitute an issue for examination in the assessments of the assessee. The enquiry, in the case on hand, is on the suppressed or undisclosed income of the assessee. The burden is on the assessee to discharge that the employees are also speaking. We are convinced embarking upon

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -27-

the enquiry into any of the situations would result in going beyond the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 260A of the Act. We have carefully examined the findings, and what is available for including the credits in favour of the assessee’s employees has been added to the assessee's income. Except for raising a monotonous objection, nothing substantially pointed out to treat the same as a substantial question for consideration by this Court. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 17. The instant question falls for consideration in ITA Nos.58/2018, 60/2018, 63/2018, 51/2018. The question dealing with the addition of income of amounts discerned from the accounts of the assessee’s employees answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. (d) Loan to Mohanraj. 18. The question of law raised in the course of argument is that “Whether the Appellate Tribunal did commit an error of

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -28-

the law when the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority, Particularly when the addition is based on the retracted statement of Mohanraj?”. 19. The Revenue basing on the details received on money lending business allegedly carried on by the assessee examined one U.K Mohanraj. U.K Mohanraj stated that he had borrowed Rs. 50 to 60 lakhs in the years 2006 and 2007. Mohanraj stated that, who have deposited signed cheques for an amount of Rs. 2.3 crores in the name of the assessee. The assessee paid in cash to Mohanraj, and the agreed rate of interest was 10%, and in default of payment of interest, penal rate of 20% per month on the balance outstanding amount. Mohanraj, by cash, repaid Rs.2.5 crores. In October 2007, the assessee informed Mohanraj’s liabilities as Rs. 1.6 crores. Mohanraj, who reconciled the payments made to the assessee in cash, relied on the withdrawals made by him from his bank accounts. The

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -29-

statement was put before the assessee, and the assessee explained that civil and criminal cases are pending against the Mohanraj in the court of competent jurisdiction. The assessee sought for cross-examination of Mohanraj. Two developments noted in the assessment order are also narrated viz. on 22.12.2011 an affidavit of Mohanraj allegedly retracted the statements given by him on 10.11.2009 is introduced. On 23.12.2011, another letter is produced confirming the statement on 10.11.2009 and denying that any affidavit is given retracting the statement made on 10.11.2009. 20. From the above, it is clear that the assessee did not pursue the objection raised for adding the said amount stated by Mohanraj to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) interfered with the said addition, being aggrieved, Revenue filed ITA No. 493/Coch/2015 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and remanded the matter. 21. We have seen the reasons given by the Tribunal for

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -30-

remanding the matter as noted in the order of the Tribunal. Firstly, no ground is made out to interfere with the order of remand, and after perusing the reasons, we appreciate that the reasons, made with the CIT(A) for taking a different view, are found to be untenable. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal, and the order of remand does not warrant our interference. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The same question arises in ITA Nos.54/2018 and 56/2018. These questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. (e) The difference in valuation of the factory building and purchase value estimation. 22. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reviewed the findings recorded by the CIT(A) on the valuation of the factory building and estimation of the purchase value of the plant and machinery and found that the findings of the CIT(A) are unsustainable and having regard to the material available and the

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -31-

view taken by the assessing authority allowed ITA Nos. 502/Coch/2015 and 505/Coch/2015.

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -32-

APPENDIX OF ITA 55/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 16.6.2015 IN ITA-C-157/CIT(A)-IV/11-12. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DATED 23.4.2018 B ITA.NO,504/C/2015 (COMMON ORDER ). ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPIES OF COMPUTER STATEMENTS OBTAINED DURING SURVEY AT TRI STAR INVESTMENTS, BANGALORE, . ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPIES OF STATEMENTS GIVEN BY SRI. THOMAS PERINCHERRY AT BANGALORE ON 05.11.2011/06.11.2011 AND DURING CROSS EXAMINATION. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS RE-TRI STAR INVESTMENTS FOR 2006. 07/2007 -08. ANNEXURE G STATEMENT RECORDED FROM NOTARY PUBLIC ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPIES OF NOTICES ISSUED TO AND REPLIES RECEIVED FROM LESSEES.

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -33-

APPENDIX OF ITA 60/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30.12.2011 ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT (A) DT. 16.06.2015 IN ITA -C-158/CIT(A)-IV/11.12 ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT. 23.04.2018 IN I.T.A NO. 505/C/2015 (COMMON ORDER) ANNEXURE D SERIES PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS RE. TRI STAR INVESTMENTS FOR 2006.07/2007.08 ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM NOTARY PUBLIC ANNEXURE F SERIES PHOTOCOPIES OF NOTICES SENT TO LESSSEES AND REPLIES SENT BY THEM

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -34-

APPENDIX OF ITA 52/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.12.2011. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT (A DT.16.6.2015 IN ITA-C-155/CIT(A)-IV/11.12. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT.23.4.2018 IN I.T.A.NO.502/C/2015(COMMON ORDER) ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY SRI THOMAS ON 5.11.2009. ANNEXURE E AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY SRI THOMAS/THE APPELLANT AND LETTER.

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -35-

APPENDIX OF ITA 57/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.12.2011 ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A)DT.16.06.2015 IN ITA-C-157/CIT(A)-IV/11.12 ANNEXURE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT.23.04.2018 IN I.T.A.NOI.495/C/2015 (COMMON ORDER) ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SRI U.K.MOHANRAJ ON 10.11.2009 ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF U.K.MOHANRAJ DT.21.12.2011.

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -36-

APPENDIX OF ITA 63/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30/12/2011. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A)DT.16/06/2015 IN ITA-C-159/CIT(A)-IV/11.12 ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT.23/04/2018 IN I.T.ANO.494/C/2015(COMMON ORDER). ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SRI.U.K.MOHANRAJ ON 10/11/2009. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF U.K.MOHANRAJ DT.21/12/2011.

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -37-

APPENDIX OF ITA 56/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30/12/2011. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A)DT.16/06/2015 IN ITA-C-157/CIT(A)-IV/11.12 ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT.23/04/2018 IN I.T.ANO.493/C/2015(COMMON ORDER). ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SRI.U.K.MOHANRAJ ON 10/11/2009. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF U.K.MOHANRAJ DT.21/12/2011.

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -38-

APPENDIX OF ITA 54/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30.12.2011. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) DT. 16.6.2015 IN ITA-C- 159/CIT (A)-IV/11.12. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT.23.4.2018 IN I.T.A.NO.506/C/2015 (COMMON ORDER)

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -39-

APPENDIX OF ITA 49/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A: PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011. ANNEXURE B: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A)DATED 16.06.2015 IN ITA-C-154/CIT(A)-IV/11-12. ANNEXURE C: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DATED 23.04.2018 IN I.T.A.NO.501/C/2015(COMMON ORDER).

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -40-

APPENDIX OF ITA 51/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30/12/2011. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) DT.16/06/2015 IN ITA-C-160-CIT(A)-IV/11.12. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT.23/04/2018 IN I.T.A.NO.507/C/2015 (COMMON ORDER).

ITA Nos.55/2018 and con.cases -41-

APPENDIX OF ITA 58/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.30/12/2011. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) DT.16/06/2015 IN ITA-C-156-CIT(A)-IV/11.12. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DT.23/04/2018 IN I.T.A.NO.503/C/2015 (COMMON ORDER). ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPIES OF COMPUTER STATEMENTS OBTAINED DURING SURVEY AT TRI STAR INVESTMENTS, BANGALORE. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPIES OF STATEMENTS GIVEN BY SRI.THOMAS PERINCHERRY AT BANGALORE ON 05/11/2011/06/11/2011 AND DURING CROSS EXAMINATION. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS RE TRI STAR INVESTMENTS FOR 2006.07/2007.08.