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 TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 ITA.No. 173 of 2002() --------------------- AGAINST ORDER DATED 31/01/2002 IN ITA.755/COCH/1990 AND C.O.NO.42/COCH/1990 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTOR/ASSESSEE ------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.KALPAKA BAZAR,TOWN HILL ROAD, CALICUT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.M.A.UNNEERIKUTTY BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT-RESPONDENT/REVENUE ----------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALICUT BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008 , THE COURT ON 26/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ------------------------- I.T.A. No. 173 of 2002 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though several questions are raised by the assessee in the appeal filed by it, the one issue to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs.10 lakhs. It is seen that assessee, which was a textile merchant, was searched by the Department and statements of the employees were also recorded thereafter. Based on materials collected and statements recorded from the employees, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.40 lakhs towards unaccounted sale of stock. In appeal the first appellate authority considered the entire evidences in detail and reduced the addition from Rs.40 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs. On appeal filed by the Department and cross objection by the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT and rejected both the appeal and cross objection. While the Department accepted the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has came up in appeal against the order in the cross objection sustaining the addition of Rs.10 lakhs. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the ITA No.173/2002 -2- assessee/appellant and learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. We are of the view that the question decided is only a pure question of fact based on evidence. Even though learned counsel for assessee submitted that the Tribunal has taken a different view in the penalty appeal, we do not think any scope for re-considering the evidence and deciding the matter because Section 260A authorises this Court to interfere with orders of the Tribunal only on substantial question of law. Since there is no question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal much less any substantial question of law, this income tax appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg