Smt.Beena Sunny vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ITA.No. 1562 of 2009()


1. SMT.BEENA SUNNY, W/O.SUNNY ANTO C.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :09/09/2009

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                               V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                        I.T. Appeal No.1562 of 2009
               ....................................................................
              Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard counsel appearing for the appellant. On going through the

order of the Tribunal and after hearing the counsel appearing for the

appellant, we do not find any question of law, much less any

substantial question of law, arising from the order of the Tribunal to

entertain the appeal. The assessment completed is a best judgment

assessment because the assessee failed to respond to repeated notices

served on her. Income assessed is nothing but cash found in the Bank

of Rs.10 lakhs The assessee offered the explanation that the source of

the deposit is sale proceeds of 2.538 kilograms of gold obtained as a

gift from her mother. However, on 19.3.1997 the assessee gave sworn

statement to the department that the assessee has no movable or

immovable properties. However, the assessee’s case is that the gold

was obtained as a gift on 15.2.2001. The departmental officer went

and recorded the statement of mother of the assessee. She stated that

2

she is living in a rented premises with her husband who is running a

Studio and the gold held by her was only 12 sovereigns i.e. only 96

grams. In other words, the mother did not confirm the appellant’s claim

that she got a gift of 2.538 kgs. of gold from her mother. The

appellant’s case was found to be bogus by all the authorities below. We

are in complete agreement with the findings based on statement

recorded from assessee’s mother. Even though counsel has argued on

question Nos.2 and 3, we do not find any substance on the technical

issues raised because on merits the explanation offered by the assessee

was found unacceptable and we have confirmed it. Consequently the

appeal is dismissed.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

V.K.MOHANAN
Judge
pms