9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The assessee has filed this appeal impugning the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.(SS) A.No.01/Coch/2006 pertaining to the block period 01.04.1990 to 15.11.2000. 2. The assessee was engaged in the business of gold and silver refinery at Perintalmanna. There was a search in his business premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cash balance of Rs. 1,30,000/- recovered at the time of search. The assessment of this amount was confirmed by the Tribunal rejecting the case of the assessee that the manager of his brother, who is the proprietor of a Jewellery shop, had handed over the above amount on the day previous to the search. This was rightly rejected stating that a search was simultaneously conducted in the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his wife's jewellery. This contention of the assessee was rejected by all authorities stating that the assessee did not maintain any books of accounts regarding receipt of Rs. 4.70 lakhs from his brother. The assessee did not also having any sales tax registration and there was nothing to connect the unexplained investment of Rs. 4.70 lakhs was that of his brother, or the sale of jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be treated as loss from business. The last contention raised by the assessee was that the income determined for the assessment year 1994-1995 to 1999-2000 after giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) was less than the non-taxable limit in each of the assessment years and therefore are liable to be excluded from undisclosed income. This contention was also rejected by the Tribunal referring to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
