High Court Kerala High Court

Edakkandakandy Praveen vs The Income Tax Officer on 10 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Edakkandakandy Praveen vs The Income Tax Officer on 10 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ITA.No. 1792 of 2009()



1. EDAKKANDAKANDY PRAVEEN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :10/02/2010

 O R D E R
    C.N.Ramachandran Nair & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ.
   ============================================
                I.T.A.1792 of 2009
   ============================================
     Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010.


                     JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

1.This appeal is filed against the orders of the

Tribunal confirming the assessment on the

appellant for the assessment years 1998-99. We

heard the senior counsel appearing for the

appellant assessee and standing counsel for the

respondent.

2.Even though senior counsel raised objection

against the status adopted as Assocation of

Persons for assessment, we do not find any merit

because, the appellant, along with five others,

was the licensee. The members of the appellant

AOP were the licensees, who are entitled to carry

on business in the toddy shop. It is seen that

ITA 1792/09 -:2:-

the business was in fact carried on by all the

members. In our view, since the members of the

AOP carried on business, pursuant to the licence

obtained by them for the 52 toddy shops in

Thalassery, the assessment in their names as AOP

is perfectly justified. The next contention,

namely, assessment of income in toddy shops

confirmed by the Tribunal also does not call for

any interference, because, admittedly, assessee

did not keep any books of accounts. The last

ground is with regard to the addition of

Rs.4,57,520/- under Section 68 for the reason

that the three creditors in whose name amount was

credited did not prove the transaction as

genuine. The senior counsel appearing for the

appellant rightly pointed out that when accounts

were rejected and business income estimated, such

income itself would account for the unexplained

cash, which was shown as the source for the

ITA 1792/09 -:3:-

payment of kist amount. Since assessee did not

maintain any books of accounts, obviously he was

generating black money and that is what is

assessed through estimation. The funds shown as

credit in the name of bogus persons obviously

were the assessee’s own funds and so much so, we

do not find any justification for any addition

over the estimated income. We, therefore, allow

the appeal in part by reversing the order of the

Tribunal and that of the lower authorities by

deleting the addition of Rs.4,57,520/- made under

Section 68 of the Act. The order of the Tribunal

confirming the addition under Section 68 would

stand cancelled. Even though counsel for the

assessee pointed out that huge amount of interest

is levied on the assessee under Section 234, we

feel that, recourse open to the assessee is to

make application before the Chief Commissioner

for waiver in the light of the circular issued by

ITA 1792/09 -:4:-

the Board of Revenue. If arrears of tax are paid

by the assessee, his request to give him time for

remitting the interest should be considered

favourably.

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge.

P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.

sl.