THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. A.M.HABEEB,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1455/2009HC KeralaKLHC01026216200927 March 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court observed that the valuations made by the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals), and the Tribunal were based on estimations derived from the facts available at the time. The Court found that the appeal did not present any issue that warranted its intervention on legal grounds. Consequently, the High Court rejected the appeal. The impleading petition filed by the Revenue to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased assessee was also closed as unnecessary.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The assessment year is not explicitly stated, but the dispute pertains to capital gains on the sale of property by the assessee, A.M. Habeeb. The assessee had claimed the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 53,278/- per cent. The Assessing Officer (AO) adopted Rs. 17,500/-, the CIT (Appeals) raised it to Rs. 35,000/-, and the ITAT further enhanced it to Rs. 42,000/-. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court challenged these valuations.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT concerning the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 for the computation of capital gains? The Revenue contended that the ITAT's determination of the fair market value was erroneous. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The High Court's primary task was to ascertain if any legally significant issue was presented for its consideration, beyond a mere re-appreciation of facts.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941 ITA.No. 1455 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 110/1998 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 30-04-2002 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: A.M.HABEEB, RABEEN HOUSE, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.No.1455 of 2009 & C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2019 -2- JUDGMENT K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J. The appeal is filed against the assessment for capital gains on sale of the property made by the assessee/ respondent. The assessee/respondent is no more and the Revenue has filed an impleading petition seeking to implead the legal heirs. Before issuing notice, we thought it fit to go through the memorandum of appeal. We find that the assessee had taken the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.53,278/- per cent at Kaloor in Ernakulam village. The assessing officer adopted it at Rs.17,500/-, the CIT (Appeals) raised it to Rs.35,000/- and the Tribunal to Rs.42,000/-. The Revenue is before us in the above appeal, in which, we do not find any question of law as such. The assessing officer and the other fact finding authorities had merely carried out

I.T.A.No.1455 of 2009 & C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2019 -3- estimation based on the fact situation as available at that point of time. We do not find any question of law arising from the above appeal and hence, we reject the same. The impleading petition, hence, is also not necessary and is closed.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/18.3

I.T.A.No.1455 of 2009 & C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2019 -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 27.03.1997. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 31.12.1997. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.04.2002.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →