Sri.P.R.Jagadeesh vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ITA.No. 1348 of 2009()


1. SRI.P.R.JAGADEESH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

                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 :27/10/2009

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                               V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                        I.T. Appeal No.1348 of 2009
               ....................................................................
               Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, counsel appearing for the appellant.

On going through the order of the Tribunal impugned in the appeal and

after hearing the counsel, we do not find any question raised is a

question of law, much less any substantial question of law. The

assessee, a businessman in jewellery, was subjected to search in his

house and residential premises. Cash worth Rs.1.9 lakhs and gold

ornaments weighing 949.78 grams were seized. The assessee

contested the proposal for addition of unexplained cash and gold found

in search under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that

cash found was borrowed from his brother who was also a businessman

and the jewellery belongs to assessee’s wife. However, it is seen from

the orders of the Tribunal that they have substantially accepted claim of

ownership of jewellery by assessee’s wife and except for 149.78 grams,

the value of 800 grams of gold was ordered to be deleted, while the

2

Assessing Officer had allowed only 250 grams as belonging to

assessee’s wife. So far as the assessee’s claim that cash found was

borrowed from his brother who was a businessman is concerned, we

are unable to accept the contention raised because if money was

accounted as borrowal from assessee’s brother, we see no reason why

it could not be collected through a Cheque or Demand Draft.

Consequently we find no ground to deviate from the Tribunal’s order.

Appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

V.K.MOHANAN
Judge
pms