THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI vs. SHRI K.THOMAS JOY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/214/2015HC KeralaKLHC01025615201528 July 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 ITAT's decision to allow the assessee's appeal, accepting the fair market value and the commission paid as claimed by the assessee, was purely in the realm of facts. The Court found that the ITAT's order, based on its appreciation of rival contentions and materials on record, did not give rise to any question of law. Therefore, the High Court concluded that it could not consider the appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated February 6, 2015. The assessment year in question is 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) had estimated the fair market value of a property at ₹36,000 for capital gains purposes, rejecting the assessee's claim of ₹1,00,000 as on April 1, 1981. Additionally, the AO allowed only ₹4,32,500 out of the ₹6,48,750 claimed by the assessee towards commission paid. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed these findings. However, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the decision of the first appellate authority to accept the fair market value of the property as estimated by the assessing officer is correct? This issue turns on the appreciation of facts and evidence related to property valuation. 2. Whether the decision of the first appellate authority to accept the commission paid for the sale of the property as estimated by the assessing officer is correct? This issue also hinges on factual determination regarding the allowability of the claimed commission. Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that the fair market value of the property as on April 1, 1981, was ₹1,00,000 and that the commission paid was ₹6,48,750, both of which should be allowed. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was allowed. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, as the appellant before the High Court, argued that the ITAT's decision to accept the assessee's claims regarding fair market value and commission paid was incorrect. The Revenue's appeal is based on the premise that the ITAT's findings give rise to a question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

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 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937 ITA.No. 214 of 2015 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 189/Coch/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-02-2015 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-2. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEP SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ---------------------------- SHRI K.THOMAS JOY, SEENA TRAVELS, 26/1741, KANATTU ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN ITA.214/15 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2010. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, KOCHI, DATED 10.12.2013. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 6.2.2015. /True copy/ PS to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A.No.214 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1.Annexure A order of assessment was passed for the assessment year 2008-09 where, for the purpose of capital gains, the assessing officer estimated fair market value of the property at `36,000/-, rejecting the claim of the assessee that it was `1,00,000/- as on 1.4.1981. Similarly, towards commission paid, the assessee claimed an amount of `6,48,750/- but only `4,32,500/- was allowed. This was confirmed by the first appellate authority. But the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. It is this order of the Tribunal which is under challenge before us in this appeal filed by the Revenue. 2.Essentially, the question that arose before the Tribunal was whether the decision of the first appellate authority to accept the fair market value and the commission paid for sale of the property estimated by the assessing officer are correct or ITA.214/15 2 not. On appreciation of the rival contentions and materials on record, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. In such an adjudication, the findings are purely in the realm of facts and this order passed by the Tribunal, in our view, does not give rise to any question of law, to be considered by this Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.

SHAJI P. CHALY, Judge. kkb.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →