IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 ITA.No. 200 of 2002 --------------------------- I.T.(S & S) A. NO.14/COCH/1999 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH. .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, G.O.I(TAXES) ADV.MR.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR I.T. RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------- K. CHANDRA BABU, “LETHA HUT”, MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.VINOD CHANDRAN. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ====================================== I.T.A.No.200 of 2002 ====================================== Dated this the 8th day of January 2009 JUDGMENT The appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal disposing of block assessment completed under Section 158BC read with section 158 BD of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. We have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent was an employee of the State Treasury Department. Based on the search conducted in the premises of the respondent's relative, notice was issued proposing block assessment on the respondent. It is seen that except for one year for all the other nine years in the block period, the department had no case that the assessee had any income other than the salary income which is below the taxable rate. Therefore the dispute pertains to only one year that too pertaining to the sale of property. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim because the only evidence of receipt is the one gathered by the department from the books maintained by the assessee's relative. The assessee has furnished documentary evidence including bank I.T.A.No.200 of 2002 2 records pertaining to sale proceeds received by him on the sale of the property. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the data gathered during the inspection was sufficient to assess the respondent on this income. We do not find any substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. Consequently the I.T.Appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/