SHRI MOHAMMED RAFI SAYED vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/77/2014HC KeralaKLHC01026643201407 August 2015Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Court observed that the Tribunal had considered each of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. The findings of the Tribunal were found to be entirely factual and based on the materials available before it. Therefore, the Court concluded that these findings did not warrant interference in an appeal under Section 260A. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mohammed Rafi Sayed, filed these appeals against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, for assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The ITAT had confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Appeals. For assessment year 2004-2005, an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made. For assessment year 2005-2006, an addition of Rs. 34,55,150/- was made. The assessee challenged these confirmed additions before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the findings of the ITAT are purely factual and do not involve any substantial question of law? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 260A). Assessee's Contention: The assessee is challenging the additions made by the revenue authorities and confirmed by the ITAT. The specific grounds of appeal are not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt, but the challenge is to the confirmation of the additions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's position is implicitly that the ITAT's findings are correct and that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 154,Section 221(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/16TH SRAVANA, 1937 ITA.No. 77 of 2014 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 172 & 173/COCH/2013 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN DATED 25-10-2013. APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN ITA: --------------------------- SHRI MOHAMMED RAFI SAYED RAJI MANZIL, KADAKKAL, MATHIRA KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 536. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN ITA: ----------------------------- THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2015, ALONG WITH ITA. 78/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 77 of 2014 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 15.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE A2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-1-2011 ISSUED BY SBT PANGODE BRANCH TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE A3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.01.2011 ISSUED BY STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KUMMIL BRANCH TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE A4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 11.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE A5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER AND GROUNDS OF DECISION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS – III, KOCHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 DATED 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013. ANNEXURE A6 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.36 AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005. ANNEXURE A7 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NO.ITA NO.172 & 173/COCH/2013 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN DATED 25.10.2013. ANNEXURE A8 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 221 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 13-1-2014 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPELLANT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smv ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No.77 & 78 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2015

JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J. These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos.172 and 173 of 2013 pertaining to the assessment year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. In so far as the assessment year 2004-2005 is concerned, the grievance was with respect to the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the assessing officer. Similarly in respect of the assessment year 2005-2006, an addition of Rs.34,55,150/- was made. These additions were confirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals and by the Tribunal. It is challenging these proceedings, these appeals are filed.

2.

Reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has considered each of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. It is thereafter that the Tribunal has confirmed the orders passed. The reading of the orders shows that the findings of the I.T.A. No.77 & 78 of 2014 2 Tribunal are entirely factual and are based on the materials that were available before it. According to us, these findings do not give rise to any question of law for the consideration by this Court in an appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Appeals fail and accordingly they are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →