IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 ITA.No. 58 of 2011() -------------------- ITA.151/COCH/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- V.K.SREENIVASAN, OMEGA HOTEL COMPLEX, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, COCHIN-682016. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI SMT.S.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) FOR R SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX FOR R THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011 ALONG WITH ITA 79/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANNEXURES IN ITA. 58/2011 ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.22-3-1995 ANNEXURE B: -DO- OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DT.12-2-1997 ANNEXURE C: -DO- OF THE CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DT. 25-11-2006 ANNEXURE D: -DO- OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIHUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DT. 19-5-2010. JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ I.T.A. Nos:58 & 79 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd September, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. These are appeals filed by the assessee challenging orders of the Appellate Authority issued for the assessment years 1984- 85 and 1985-86. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the orders of the Tribunal. 2. In the first place we have to note that the Tribunal has adversely commented upon the conduct of the assessee who was before the Tribunal in appeal, a third round for the very same years. The Tribunal's clear finding is that assessee, though was granted several opportunities at all levels by all authorities, declined to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim which is mainly to explain source of funds introduced in business. The additions of around Rs.17 lakhs (Rupees seventeen lakhs only) made is on account of the assessee's failure to explain the cash introduced in business by himself, his wife and children. Since the cash introduced were not explained, the Income Tax Officer ITA Nos: 58 & 79/2011 2 proposed to make addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Though assessee had a specific case that assessee was engaged in agricultural operations and was earning agricultural income, no evidence was produced about the nature of the cultivation, income earned therefrom and tax if any paid under the Agricultural Income Tax Act to the State Government. Third round proceedings are over pertaining to the same years. Even at the last level the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that the cash introduced in business was agricultural income earned by the assessee or his family members. While the above is the main addition, the remaining additions are only small amounts towards capital gain and estimation of income from hotel business for want of credible accounts. 3. After hearing the petitioner and after going through the orders of the Tribunal we are not satisfied that any substantial question of law arises for decision under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act because all the findings pertain to facts and based on evidence. So far as the main addition under Section 69 is concerned, the burden of proof to explain cash introduced in the accounts is on the assessee and when the assessee failed to explain it, in spite of the repeated opportunities granted, the ITA Nos: 58 & 79/2011 3 Tribunal, in our view rightly sustained the addition. Consequently we see no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/ P.S.to Judge ITA Nos: 58 & 79/2011 4