Bhima Jewellers, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad vs. The Pr CIT, Kozhikkode
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed
ITA 208/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14
Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D
…per Revenue, since the addition in question under section 68 of the Act is not income from the assessee's business, it has been wrongly ordered to be treated as assessee's business income. We notice that the case law of CIT vs. Abdul Rahman Industries (2007) 293 ITR 475(Mad.) and Chensing Ventures (supra) has been relied upon by the assessee which is sought to be distinguished by the Revenue. We notice the facts of the said case are entirely different. In the said case, unclaimed balance in question emanated from trading transactions and findings had also been recorded that the transactions were very much connec…
