SMT.REKHA C.BABU, vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/62/2008HC KeralaKLHC01026967200816 October 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained investment, was perfectly in order. The Court reached this conclusion by respectfully following its own prior decision in ITA No. 14/2008 dated February 27, 2009. That earlier judgment, rendered on identical facts concerning the husband and father of the present assessees, had upheld the addition. The ratio decidendi is that when facts are identical to a precedent set by a Division Bench of the same High Court, that precedent should be followed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals. No costs were awarded. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam were filed by Smt. Rekha C. Babu and another assessee (implied by the reference to ITA No. 79/2008). The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Ernakulam. The appeals challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated December 28, 2007, which was in appeal number ITA 484/2006. The High Court noted that the facts were identical to a previous case involving the husband and father of the assessees, which was decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in ITA No. 14/2008 on February 27, 2009.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained investment, was in order? (Question of law). The assessee's contention is not recorded. The revenue's contention is that the addition made under Section 69 was perfectly in order. The High Court relied on a previous judgment of its own Division Bench in ITA No. 14/2008 dated 27.02.2009, which dealt with identical facts and found the addition under Section 69 to be in order. The judgment does not explicitly state the arguments made by either the assessee or the revenue in the present appeals, but rather refers to the reasoning in the prior judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 24TH ASWINA, 1940 ITA.No. 62 of 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 484/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 28-12-2007 APPELLANT/S: SMT.REKHA C.BABU, AGED 1 YEARS CHANDRATHIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS RESPONDENT/S: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. OTHER PRESENT: SRI PKR MENON SR COUNSEL FOR GOI TAXES THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2018, ALONG WITH ITA NO.79/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A Nos.62/2008 &79/2008

J U D G M E N T Vinod Chandran, J On identical facts, this Court in the case of the husband of one of the assessees and father of the other assessee had found the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1956 as unexplained investment to be perfectly in order. The decision has been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA No.14/2008 dated 27.02.2009. We respectfully follow the aforesaid judgment and dismiss the appeals. No costs. K. Vinod Chandran, Judge Ashok Menon, Judge jma

APPENDIX IN ITA NO.62/2008 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURS: ANNEXURE A :OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2001-02 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE APPELLANT DT 04.01.2006 ANNEXURE B :OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANT DT.12.06.06 ANNEXURE C :OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DT 28.12.2007 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ANNEXURE AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2001-02 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE APPELLANT DATED 4.1.2006 ANNEXURE BOF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANT DATED 12.6.2006. ANNEXURE COF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →