SREEDHARAN K Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioner was assessed to income-tax. Exhibit P-l is the assessment order. In computing the income of the petitioner, the Income-tax Officer made the following additions to the petitioner's income :

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the assessment order, the petitioner filed a revision. Exhibit P-2 is the revisional order. The revisional authority accepted the claim of the petitioner to exclude the addition of 4/5ths share of agricultural income of minor sons and wife. The revisional authority has not accepted the contention of the petitioner in respect of the addition to the petitioner's income under the heads (a), (b) and (c) mentioned above. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging exhibit P-2 revisional order. The addition on account of insufficient drawings has not been challenged before me. The only challenge is on account of addition of deemed dividend and unexplained investment. Regarding the unexplained investment, the contention of the assessee was that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was invested in a sister concern and the amount was withdrawn on July 23, 1983, from the private limited company, namely, M/s. Sreedharan and Co. Ltd. This argument was considered by the first respondent and found that the investment was on July 6, 1983, while the withdrawal from the company was on July 23, 1983. The explanation, therefore, cannot be accepted. For the first time, it was contended before me that the withdrawal on July 23, 1983, was a mistake for July 6, 1983. It is stated to be a clerical mistake. Such a contention cannot be raised for the first time in this writ petition as there was no such contention before the Income-tax Officer or even before the revisional authority, the first respondent. Therefore, exhibit P-2 in so far as rejecting the contention of the petitioner under the unexplained investment and directing the addition of Rs. 10,000 as income from other sources is not liable to be interfered with.