IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 ITA.No. 1348 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.23/COCH/2000 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN ITA 23/C/2000 --------------------------------------------------------- SRI.P.R.JAGADEESH, WOODLANDS ICE 'N'CREAM, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT IN ITA 23/C/2000 ----------------------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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