Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 33]

Kerala High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Promy Kuriakose on 14 July, 2016

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT:

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
                                            &
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

          MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/7TH BHADRA, 1938

                      RP.No. 715 of 2016 () IN ITA.296/2013
                          ---------------------------------------


AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 296/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 14-07-2016

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN ITA:
----------------------------------------------

                COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KOCHI.




                BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN ITA:
----------------------------------------

                PROMY KURIAKOSE
                PADAYATTIL HOUSE, KIDANGLOOR, ANGAMALLY.


                R BY SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

         THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
        29-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



           ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
           -------------------------------------------
                             R.P. No. 715 of 2016
                                      in
                            ITA No. 296 of 2013
           ------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 29th day of August, 2016.

                                   ORDER

Antony Dominic,J.

This review petition is filed by the Revenue seeking review of the judgment dated 14.07.2016 in ITA No. 296 of 2013.

2. We heard the learned Senior counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the assessee.

3. The main contention raised is that this Court has committed an error in answering the first question of law whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessment can be made under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act in the absence of search materials for that particular year, against the Revenue. In this context, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hotel Meriya1.

4. A reading of the judgment show that it was the contention of the Revenue that even in the absence of any material being 1 [2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker) R.P. No. 715/2016 -2- recovered in the search, assessment can be made under Section 153C of the Act. This Court considered the said contention and rejected the same holding that in the absence of search materials, proceedings under Section 153C of the Act cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer. It was on that basis the first question of law was answered against the Revenue. However, after answering the legal question against the Revenue, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, this Court also entered a further factual finding that in the search, sale deed dated 27.10.2000 and balance sheet as on 31.03.2005 were recovered and it was therefore the Tribunal went into the merits of the assessment and disposed of the appeals after rejecting the aforesaid contention of the Revenue.

5. Therefore, the question of law, according to us, was correctly answered. We do not find any error in the judgment under review.

Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

DAMAJUDGE.

SESHADRI NAIDU, Rv R.P. No. 715/2016 -3-