IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 ITA.No. 247 of 2002() --------------------- ITA.380(COCH)/1998 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ V.K.ASOKAN, SREELEKSHMI, BENT ROAD, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.K.S.MENON (K) SRI.R.AMRITHARAJ THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2008, AONG WITH ITA NO. 284 OF 2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.Appeal Nos.247 & 284 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The common question raised is whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming deletion of profit estimated on unaccounted quantity of arrack alleged to have been purchased and sold by the respondent-assessee. We find that the sole reason for making addition is inflation in sale price by the assessee. Though it could be quite logical to assume that assessee inflated sale price to cover up unaccounted purchase and sales, we do not think it will have effect of tax evasion in as much as full sale price is accounted by the assessee. Since no case of unaccounted sale or purchase is proved, the C.I.T.(Appeals) deleted the addition with some modification. The Tribunal has only confirmed the same. We do not find any substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. We accordingly dismiss the appeals. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms