SMT.RENU C BABU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal, respectfully following its own previous judgment in the appeals filed by the appellant's father (ITA Nos. 14, 16 and 19 of 2008). In those appeals, a Division Bench had rejected the appeals on February 27, 2009, accepting the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which adopted the sale consideration as shown in the agreements for sale. The reasoning was that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. Therefore, by extension, this appeal also does not present a question of law justifying interference. The operative direction is the rejection of the appeal. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The appeal concerns the assessment year 2001-02. A search was conducted by the Income Tax Department at the premises of the appellant's father, leading to notices being issued to both the appellant and her father. The primary dispute revolves around the consideration for a sale transaction. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Department on January 4, 2006. This was followed by an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on June 8, 2006. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, passed its order on December 26, 2007, which is under challenge before the High Court. The appellant is Smt. Renu C. Babu, and the respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ernakulam.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in adopting the sale consideration as shown in the agreement for sale, when the registered Deed of Sale indicated a lesser consideration, as a question of law or mixed question of law and fact, arising from the assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee's contention, by implication, is that the consideration recorded in the registered Deed of Sale should prevail. The Revenue's contention, as upheld by the Tribunal and subsequently by the High Court in similar matters, is that the higher consideration stated in the agreement for sale is the correct basis for assessment. The High Court noted that similar appeals filed by the appellant's father (ITA Nos. 14, 16 and 19 of 2008) were rejected by a Division Bench on February 27, 2009, for not raising any question of law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T Vinod Chandran, J. A search was conducted by the Department in the premises of the father of the appellant/assessee and notices were issued to the appellant/assessee and to her father, on the basis of the materials recovered on search. One issue raised in the appeal is with respect to the adoption of the sale price shown in the agreement for sale when the Deed for Sale showed a lesser consideration. The issue arose also in the case of assessment of the appellant's father. The assessments of the father of the appellant/assessee were also challenged in appeals, numbered as ITA Nos.14, 16 and 19 of 2008. Those appeals were rejected by judgment dated 27.02.2009 by a Division Bench, accepting the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order adopting the sale consideration as shown in the agreements for sale. The learned Judges rejected the appeals finding no question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. Respectfully following the same, we reject this appeal also. No costs. K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Siddharth Barai (Prop- Siddharth Design Studio) vs. The Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, Balangir RangeOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Shashibhusan Moharana vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, DhenkanalOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Sanjeevini Health Care vs. M/S.Vijayalakshmi And AssociatesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Trilok Chandra vs. State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
- Basant Ballabh Punetha vs. State Of UttarakhandUttarakhand · 4 Nov 2026
