K.T.JOSEPH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITA/204/2013HC KeralaKLHC01026089201330 July 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from the cause list of the High Court of Kerala and does not contain the judgment of the ITAT or the High Court itself. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision, the reasoning, the ratio, and the operative directions are not available. The specific findings on the issues, the arguments made by the assessee and the revenue, and any authorities or precedents relied upon are also not recorded in this excerpt. Consequently, no part of the judgment can be analyzed or summarized.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the assessee, K.T. Joseph, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated March 28, 2013. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision in ITA No. 613/2011. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ernakulam. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the present appeal is filed against the order passed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer, thereby disallowing the claim of the assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning the assessment of income). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text. However, the appeal itself suggests disagreement with the ITAT's order. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's arguments are not detailed in the provided text. The presence of the revenue as the respondent indicates their opposition to the assessee's appeal.

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 TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013/8TH SRAVANA, 1935 ITA.No. 204 of 2013 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 613/2011 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 28-03-2013 ....................................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------- K.T.JOSEPH 50/1772, YUVAJANA SAMAJAM ROAD, KADAVANTHRA KOCHI-20. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BOBY JOHN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS ITA.No. 204 of 2013 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:- ANNEXURE A:- COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2009 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE B:- COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.09.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE C:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH RESOPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DCS THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................. I.T.A. No.204 of 2013 ....................................................... Dated this the 30th day of July, 2013

JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. 2.Among the two grounds sought to be raised in support of the I.T.Appeal, the second is essentially a question of fact. The first question is regarding the validity of additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year concerned, allegedly, in the absence of any incriminating material. The order of the Tribunal clearly records in paragraph 6 thereof that the assessee's representative did not advance submissions on that issue. Under such circumstances, we are not impressed by the submissions on behalf of the assessee that if that were so, the Tribunal should not have made further observations. Hence, we do not see that any question as question No.1

I.T.A. No.204 of 2013 2 formulated in the memorandum of appeal before us arises from the order of the Tribunal. IT Appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) AMV/31/7/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →