IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 1562 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.85/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------- SMT.BEENA SUNNY, W/O.SUNNY ANTO C., PROP.CHIRAKKEKARAN ANGENCY, P.O.ROAD, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE K. JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.1562 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel appearing for the appellant. On going through the order of the Tribunal and after hearing the counsel appearing for the appellant, we do not find any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arising from the order of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal. The assessment completed is a best judgment assessment because the assessee failed to respond to repeated notices served on her. Income assessed is nothing but cash found in the Bank of Rs.10 lakhs The assessee offered the explanation that the source of the deposit is sale proceeds of 2.538 kilograms of gold obtained as a gift from her mother. However, on 19.3.1997 the assessee gave sworn statement to the department that the assessee has no movable or immovable properties. However, the assessee's case is that the gold was obtained as a gift on 15.2.2001. The departmental officer went and recorded the statement of mother of the assessee. She stated that 2 she is living in a rented premises with her husband who is running a Studio and the gold held by her was only 12 sovereigns i.e. only 96 grams. In other words, the mother did not confirm the appellant's claim that she got a gift of 2.538 kgs. of gold from her mother. The appellant's case was found to be bogus by all the authorities below. We are in complete agreement with the findings based on statement recorded from assessee's mother. Even though counsel has argued on question Nos.2 and 3, we do not find any substance on the technical issues raised because on merits the explanation offered by the assessee was found unacceptable and we have confirmed it. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms