IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 ITA.No. 20 of 2008() -------------------- IT(SS) A.21/COCH/2005 & C NO.55/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- M/S.HOTEL SHAZIYA, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI.K.RASHEED. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T. Appeal No. 20 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised pertains to estimation of income from business in restaurants. After search, the income was estimated by the Assessing Officer at 10% which was reduced to 8% by the first appellate authority and Tribunal in turn to 5%. We do not find any question of law arising from the findings of the Tribunal with regard to estimation of income. Counsel for the assessee has raised a further contention that search was not based on warrant issued in favour of assessee, but warrant was in the name of one C.K.K. Moidu. However, the fact remains that assessee's hotel was searched and assessment is a block assessment based on materials gathered on such search. The assessee did not contest ownership or carrying on business by him. In fact the contention that search was not legal based on warrant was not pressed before the first appellate authority. Therefore the Tribunal did 2 snot allow this ground to be raised as a cross-objection before it. We do not find any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order on this issue which is concluded by the CIT (Appeals), before whom the assessee did not press the ground. We therefore dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3