By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsri.r.sreejithsmt.k.krishnasmt.parvathy Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ITA NO. 31 OF 2023AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA NO.22/COCH/2022 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: P.V. THOMASAGED 64 YEARSPOOTHARAYIL HOUSE, AYMANAM. P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686015 BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENONSRI.R.SREEJITHSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.PARVATHY MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE INCOME TAX OFFICERINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO. 5, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTRI ROAD KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001 BY ADV.SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This Income Tax Appeal impugns the order dated 02.08.2022 ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin in ITANo.22/COCH/2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-2016 underthe Income Tax Act. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts necessary for thedisposal of this Income Tax Appeal are that the appellant, who is adealer in used cars, had filed a return of income on 12.12.2015 for theassessment year 2015-2016 declaring a total income of Rs.13,54,160/-.The assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act wascompleted by disallowing the cash payment of an amount ofRs.11,59,000/- under Section 40A (3) of the Income Tax Act. Aggrievedby the assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the FirstAppellate Authority, who noticed that the appellant had actually agreedto the addition of Rs.11,59,000/- under Section 40A (3), and hence hecould not be said to be aggrieved by the assessment order since it wasan agreed order. In a further appeal preferred by the appellant, theTribunal also agreed with the First Appellate Authority. It is against thesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the ITA. No.31 of 2023 appellant, that he has now approached this Court through the presentIncome Tax Appeal. 3. We have heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counselfor the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph the learned Standing counsel forthe Income Tax Department. 4. On a consideration of the rival submissions and taking note ofthe fact that the appellant had admitted the addition under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act and further, had not produced any materialbefore any of the Appellate Authorities to suggest that the addition wasnot warranted, the finding of the Tribunal based on the admission of theappellant does not warrant any interference in this appeal. Resultantly, this Income Tax Appeal fails and is accordinglydismissed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE mns APPENDIX OF ITA 31/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THERESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DTD. 28-06-2017 Annexure B COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTBEFORW THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN DTD. 05-01-2022 Annexure C COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM DTD. 06-08-2018 Annexure D CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN ITA NO.22/COCH/2020 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHINDTD,. 02-08-2022