THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRICHUR vs. M. ABDUL GADHAFI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the issues in the cases of Jafees Mohammed and P.P. Baskaran for the assessment year 2005-06 had been remanded back to the Assessing Officer. In light of this procedural development concerning related cases, the High Court deemed it unnecessary to decide on the questions raised in the present appeal. Instead, the Court directed the Assessing Officer to decide on the question of undisclosed income with respect to the property at Mahe. The principle here is that when related matters are being reconsidered at the assessment stage, the appellate court may defer its decision and allow the AO to re-examine the issue in light of the changed circumstances or directions in other cases. The operative direction is a remand to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The appeal concerns the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to the income of the respondent-assessee, M. Abdul Gadhafi, based on documents recovered during a search of P.P. Bhaskaran's premises. This addition related to an unexplained investment in a property located at Mahe. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted this addition. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has filed an appeal against the ITAT's order before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should decide the issue regarding the unexplained investment in the property at Mahe, given that similar issues in the cases of Jafees Mohammed and P.P. Baskaran for the same assessment year have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel pointed out that the issues in the cases of Jafees Mohammed and P.P. Baskaran for the assessment year 2005-06 have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the present appeal should also be dealt with similarly. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the merits of the addition or the ITAT's deletion. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
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 ASHOK MENON THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 18TH MAGHA, 1940 ITA.No. 249 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 143/2011 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-05-2012 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M. ABDUL GADHAFI 51, MC REVER SIDE ENCLAVE, THALASSERY P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-695 532. OTHER PRESENT: SMT S. PARVATHI AMICUS CURIAE THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA No.249/2012 ::2:: JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. The issue raised in the appeal is with respect to the deletion by the Tribunal, of one addition made by the Assessing Officer, in the case of the respondent-assessee herein relating to unexplained investment in a property at Mahe. The assessment was made in the case of the assessee on the strength of documents recovered on a search conducted in the premises of one P.P.Bhaskaran. The assessment year herein is 2005-06. 2. The learned Counsel for the assessee points out that the issue in the case of Jafees Mohammed & P.P.Baskaran for the assessment year 2005-06 have been remanded back to the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, we do not think there is any warrant for deciding on the questions
ITA No.249/2012 ::3:: raised in this appeal. We merely direct the Assessing Officer to decide on the question of undisclosed income with respect to the property at Mahe. The I.T.A. is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge Sd/- Ashok Menon, jma Judge
ITA No.249/2012 ::4:: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF SEIZED ITEM NO.A-KKG 1(16). ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT OF SHRI P.P.BHASKARAN DATED 30/05/2007. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT OF SHRI P.P. BHASKARAN DATED 30/08/2007. ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI K.ASHRAF. ANNEXURE-E TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI V.V.MOHAMMED. ANNEXURE-F TRUE COPY ASSTT. ORDER FOR THE AY 2005- 06. ANNEXURE-G TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) 2005-06. ANNEXURE-H TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DATED 30/11/2011. ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ITAT DATED 25/05/2012. ANNEXURE-J TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI P.P. BHASKARAN. ANNEXURE-K TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI K. ASHRAF. ANNEXURE-L ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. KAMADHENU MILK PRODUCTS. ANNEXURE-M COPY OF INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahadev Malik vs. Additional Commissioner, BhubaneswarOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Dillip Kumar Sethy vs. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Sri. R. Veerabhadrappa vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 6 Nov 2026
- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Dipankar Borgohain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026