IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 ITA.No. 77 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2006 IN (S&S) IN ITA.21/COCH/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- SHRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN, MURALEE BHAVAN, KANNANAKUZHI, (VIA) CHARUMOODU. ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.77 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.10 lakhs in the block assessment made on the respondent after search, by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is confirmed by the Tribunal. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that the addition pertains to difference in value of a property which was stated to be first purchased in the name of another person by the assessee himself as power of attorney holder and later the property was sold in favour of the wife of the assessee. The property is admittedly in the Village and assessee's case is that high valuation is shown for the purpose of obtaining solvency certificate for Abkari licence. The first appellate authority accepted the case and the Tribunal confirmed it. We do not 2 find any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal on the findings on this issue. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms