Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
2. By this application, the respondent in I.T.A. No. 195 of 2014 is seeking review of the judgment dated 19-8-2015 whereby the questions of law framed for consideration of this Court was answered in favour of the Revenue and the order of the Tribunal was set aside.
3. The contention now raised by the learned Senior Counsel to impugn the judgment of this Court as erroneous, is that from Ext.R1 series of documents now produced, it is obvious that the receipts by the assessee from M/s. Vatika Merchants Private Limited were through banking channels and therefore, could not have been treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
4. However, having considered the contention raised, we are unable to accept the same. It is obvious from the judgment under review that before the assessing officer itself, M/s. Vatika Merchants Private Limited had confirmed the transactions between the assessee and M/s. Vatika. This was considered by the assessing officer and the assessing officer treated the receipts as unexplained cash credit for the reason that M/s. National Multi Commodity Exchange of India had confirmed that M/s. Vatika Merchants (supra) was expelled from the exchange long prior to the transactions in question. Further, it was also confirmed that the assessee is a non-existent client under any member of the exchange.
5. Taking into account, these facts and the fact that the assessee had not produced any material to contradict the statement of the exchange, the assessing officer held the claim of generation of commodity trading profit of Rs. 5,13,55,093 as a sham and a bogus one. Therefore, Annexure-R series of documents now relied on would not improve the case of the assessee in any manner.
6. In any event, the judgment contains the reasons for the conclusions of this Court and if the assessee is aggrieved by those conclusions, the remedy of the assessee is to challenge the judgment before the appellate forum. Review, therefore, is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.