THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) KOCHI vs. SRI.VARGHESE MATHEW

PDF · subscribers

ITA/5/2013HC KeralaKLHC01025890201322 July 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, did not merit admission as no substantial question of law arose for decision. The Court observed that the sum and substance of the consideration by the Appellate Tribunal was essentially a re-appreciation of the entire facts and materials. The Tribunal had concluded that it was inappropriate to reject the assessee's books of accounts due to the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted the acceptance of the assessee's declared turnover by the Sales Tax Department, which was not rebutted by the Assessing Officer. The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision marshalled issues of fact based on the materials before it and did not give rise to any question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, to be decided in the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Sri. Varghese Mathew. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but the orders under challenge are from the Assessing Officer dated 28/12/2009, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 20/08/2010, and the ITAT dated 25/05/2012. The Revenue's appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had concluded that it was inappropriate to reject the assessee's books of accounts as there was no incriminating material presented by the tax authorities to warrant such rejection. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's declared turnover had been accepted by the Sales Tax Department, a fact not rebutted by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not admitting the appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that no substantial question of law arises. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the Tribunal's reasoning, as reflected in the judgment, indicates that the assessee's books of accounts were accepted by the Sales Tax Department and no incriminating material was found by the tax authorities to reject the books. The Tribunal's decision was based on a re-appreciation of facts and materials. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, as the appellant, contended that substantial questions of law arise from the ITAT's order, warranting admission of the appeals under Section 260A of the Act. The judgment does not detail the specific arguments made by the Revenue before the High Court, other than their assertion that substantial questions of law exist.

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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2013/31ST ASHADHA, 1935 ITA.No. 5 of 2013 () --------------------- I.T.A. NO.577/COCH/2010 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH. ............. APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY SRI.P.K.R. MENON, SENIOR SC, INCOME TAX. ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- SRI.VARGHESE MATHEW, EMBASSERIL HOUSE, KURUPPUMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR-683 545. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-07-2013, ALONG WITH ITA. NO.201 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ITA.No. 5 of 2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1, A2 COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 20/12/2004 VKP1(10) IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY, PRICE LIST EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2007 (IMPOUNDED) VKP 1(6). ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28/12/2009. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 20/08/2010. ANNEXURE D COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 25/05/2012. ANNEXURE E COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011 DATED 09/02/2011. ANNEXURE F COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE MANAGER. ANNEXURE G COPY OF THE STATEMENT FROM 31/07/2007 TO 07/08/2007. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................................... ITA Nos.5, 22, 23 of 2013, 201, 209, 210, 213, 224, 232 & 242 of 2012 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2013.

J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.These appeals are by the Revenue. They, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short, 'the Act', do not merit admission, since we see no substantial question of law arising for decision in these appeals. 2.The sum and substance of the consideration by the Appellate Tribunal has been, essentially, re-appreciation of the entire facts and materials as considered by the statutory authorities under the Act. The Tribunal concluded that it was inappropriate to reject the books of accounts of the assessee and there was no incriminating material brought on record by the tax authorities, which warranted rejection of books of accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had submitted that the turnover declared by him has been accepted by the Sales Tax Department

ITA 5/13 & conn. -2- and the said fact has not been rebutted by the Department through its Assessing Officer. The decision rendered by the Tribunal explicitly shows that issues of facts have been marshalled on the basis of the materials before it, and the decision rendered by it, in our view, does not give rise to any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, to be decided in these appeals under Section 260A of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals fail. They are, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →