Kerala High Court
Sunrise Academy Of Medical ... vs Income Tax Officer on 22 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KER 298
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940
WA.No. 1297 of 2018 IN WPC. 3485/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.3485/2018 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 22-05-2018
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SUNRISE ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SPECIALITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
VII/528C, SEA PORT AIRPORT ROAD, KOCHI - 682 030
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMT.PARVEEN HAFEEZ.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
SRI.R.SREEJITH
KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
CORPORATE WARD 2(1), RANGE-2, KOCHI-682 018.
BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sp
C.R.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.
----------------------------------
W.A. No.1297 of 2018
----------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The appellant impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, which was filed without availing the appellate remedy as available in the statute. Suffice it to notice on facts that the appellant, a private limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, and in which the public are not substantially interested, issued shares at a premium above the face value. The appellant did not offer any amount so received as income for the purpose of taxation under the Income-tax Act. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued and the appellant is said to have W.A. No.1297 of 2018 2 disclosed the genuineness of the persons, who purchased the said shares on a premium. The Assessing Officer then attempted to tax the amounts so received under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, the Act].
2. The appellant/assessee contended before the learned Single Judge that the notice issued was only with respect to the source from which the funds were received and the same having been disclosed, there was no scope for a further proceeding, especially under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The provision would not be applicable unless the test under Section 68 of the Act is satisfied, is the further argument.
3. The learned Single Judge extracted the notice, which we also deem fit to extract here as evident in Ext.P1 as follows:
b