IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 ITA.No. 149 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.976/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- P.K. KANNAN, PROP VIJAYA CONSTRUCTIONS, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 149 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the revenue. Of the two questions raised, second question is covered by our decision I.T.A.No. 1611 of 2009 against the assessee. The next question pertains to two cash credit additions, one for Rs.21,53,938/- and the other for Rs. 34,69,900/-. 2. So far as the first item of credit is concerned, when the assessing officer called for particulars of sundry creditors, the assessee himself brought to the notice of the assessing officer that he did not know the whereabouts of such creditors and therefore he will not be able to contact such persons. Consequently without any enquiry whatsoever, the assessing officer sustained the addition as it stands disproved or rather virtually admitted as disproved by the assessee. So far as the second item is concerned, the contention of counsel for the assessee is that assessee was systematically withdrawing cash from the account and reintroducing the balance withdrawn amount into the business. However, this contention was considered by three lower ITA 149/2009 2 authorities, and all the three authorities, including the Tribunal, concurrently found against the assessee. Even though counsel for the appellant canvassed for the proposition that only the peak credit should be treated as unexplained income, we are unable to accept the contention because the amounts introduced are in lakhs ranging from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs. Appellant's case is that cash is withdrawn from the account exclusively for various purposes and balance is so huge amount after meeting the expenses for which cash was withdrawn. However, we find that the appellant has not even tried to establish before any of the lower authorities with details of withdrawals, each time the item for which expenditure was incurred and the excess available for reintroduction into account. We do not find any substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal pertaining to cash credit additions sustained. Consequently we dismiss the assessee's appeal on both the questions raised. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk