IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ITA.No. 8 of 2002()
1. V.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN , ATTUMALI HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/02/2008
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
I.T.A. No. 8 OF 2002
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J.
Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel for the
department. The assessing officer for the year 1987-88 assessed the
value of gold seized by the customs department from the petitioner
under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, that is unexplained money.
The assessee took the stand that he is only a goldsmith and gold seized
by the customs department belonged to others. Eventhough assessee
adduced evidence, claims made by four persons were allowed and the
balance amount which could not be proved as not belonging to the
assessee was assessed. When the first appeal filed by the assessee was
unsuccessful, assessee filed second appeal and an additional ground
was raised before the Tribunal stating that assessment under Section
69A should be as “business income”. The Tribunal found no substance
in the ground because the assessee never raised such a contention
2
before the lower authorities, nor could estsablish with evidence that he
was engaged in the business of gold and gold ornaments. We do not
find any substantial question of law arising from the order of the
Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
kk
3