ADATTIL MOHAMMED, HILL VIEW vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITA/36/2012HC KeralaKLHC01023958201218 June 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises for consideration in the appeal, as the issue was purely one of fact. The Court observed that the statutory authorities and the Tribunal had reached a particular decision based on the factual matrix, which included a contract for sale at Rs. 3 crores, a conveyance deed at Rs. 64 lakhs, and oral evidence of Rs. 2 crores. The appellant's plea for an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present arguments on document preference was considered within this factual context. Since the Court found no question of law, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal arises from proceedings initiated based on documents seized during a search at the appellant's premises. The seized documents included a contract for sale stipulating a consideration of Rs. 3 crores, while the subsequent conveyance deed reflected a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. The wife of the vendee testified that the actual consideration was Rs. 2 crores. The appellant contended that the cheques mentioned in the contract for sale aggregated only Rs. 2 crores, not Rs. 3 crores, and sought an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence regarding the preferred document. The statutory authorities and the Tribunal ultimately reached a decision on these facts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a question of law arises for consideration based on the factual matrix presented in the appeal, concerning the discrepancy in the consideration amount between the contract for sale, the conveyance deed, and the oral testimony. Assessee's contentions: The appellant argued that the cheques referenced in the contract for sale totaled Rs. 2 crores, not Rs. 3 crores. They sought an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and demonstrate which document should be given precedence. The core of their argument was that a factual dispute required further examination and that the authorities had not properly considered the evidence. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue. However, it implies that the revenue, along with the statutory authorities and the Tribunal, had reached a decision on the factual matrix.

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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/28ND JYAISHTA 1934 ITA.No. 36 of 2012 ------------------- .NO./ IN ITA.NO.135/2011 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- ADATTIL MOHAMMED, HILL VIEW, CHANKUVETTY, MAIN ROAD, KOTTAKKAL. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.PREM NAVAZ J.R. SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT: ----------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS ITA.No. 36 of 2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANN.A: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANN.B: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANN.C: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DT.21/10/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AS THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A.No.36 of 2012 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of June, 2012

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. On the basis of documents seized in a search in the premises of the appellant, proceedings were initiated. The crux of the issue raised before us in this appeal is purely one of fact. The documents seized showed a contract for sale fixing the consideration at Rs.3 crores. The document of sale, i.e., conveyance reflected consideration of Rs.64 lakhs. The wife of the vendee gave evidence that it was Rs.2 crores. The plea of the appellant is that the cheques referred to in the contract for sale itself amounts only to Rs.2 crores and not Rs.3 crores. He would, therefore, plea for an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and to show before the authority as to which among the documents have to be preferred. In our view, on the aforesaid factual matrix, the statutory authorities and the ITA.36/12 2 Tribunal have ultimately reached at a particular decision and no question of law arises for consideration on the basis of such finding. The appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge. K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge. kkb.19/6.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →