P.P.VARGHESE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITA/57/2012HC KeralaKLHC01023979201204 June 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,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 and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or the High Court's findings. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning behind its decision, the ratio decidendi, or any operative directions. The specific issues, as framed, could not be addressed based on the information available. No part of the appeal was expressly left undecided as the substantive decision is not present.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal before the High Court of Kerala concerning income tax matters. The appellant is P.P. Varghese, and the respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ernakulam. The appeal is against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, dated February 17, 2012, which was passed in ITA Nos. 492 & 493/2011. The specific assessment year(s) and the exact nature of the dispute or the amount in dispute are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that this appeal has been admitted for hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in its decision regarding the tax treatment of certain income for the assessment year(s) in question, and if so, what is the correct legal position under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, P.P. Varghese, in this excerpt. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, in this excerpt.

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 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/14TH JYAISHTA 1934 ITA.No. 57 of 2012 () ---------------------------- IN ITA.NO.492 & 493/COCH/2011 of THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, DATED 17/02/2012 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- P.P.VARGHESE PUTHUVA HOUSE, OORAKKADU, MALAYIDAMTHURUTHU P.O. EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 561 PAN:AASPV 5092 P. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM 682 018 BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBY JOHN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2012, ALONG WITH ITA NO:58/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MJL ITA NO:57/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE- A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ANNEXURE-B : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ANNEXURE - C : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 17/02/2012 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P A TO JUDGE MJL THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A.Nos.57 & 58 of 2012 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of June, 2012

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant quite in extenso on the different aspects of the matter. Heard learned Government Pleader also. The controversy between the appellant assessee and the department is regarding the appropriate evaluation to be applied to certain assets, in particular, a building constructed by the assessee. We see that the Appellate Tribunal has only passed an order of remit at the instance of the department to enable appropriate comparative evaluation of the case of the assessee and the case of the department on the basis of the valuation report. Under such circumstances we do not find any ground to entertain this ITA and would only direct that following the order of remit made by the Tribunal, the ITA.57/12 2 Assessing Officer will consider the matter afresh, including by providing opportunity to the appellant assessee to make submissions in conformity with the directions and observations made by the learned Tribunal. It will also be open to the appellant to make appropriate submissions, including in writing, before the Valuation Officer. The appeals are dismissed subject to the aforesaid. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge. K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge. kkb.4/6.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →