Court In The Case Of M.janardhana Rao v. Joint Commissioner Of Income

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2007 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1929 ITA.No. 181 of 2000() --------------------- ITA NO. 733/COCH/93 , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN M.P.NO. 94/Coch/98, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN. APPELLANT/ASSESSEEE: ----------------- M/S. P.V.S. HOSPITAL (PVT )LTD., RAILWAY STATION ROAD,CALICUT – 673 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. T.K. JAYARAJ. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR RESPONDENTS/REVENUE: -------------------------------------- 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT. 2.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),CALICUT – 1. CALICUT – 1. BY ADV SRI GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC, IT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- I.T.A. NO. 181 of 2000 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8[th] June, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. This appealis filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961('Act' for short), against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Cochin Bench, in ITA.NO.733/1993 dated 15.2.1999, for the assessment year1987-1988. 2. The assessee has raised the following questions, which according to it are the substantial questions of law. They are as under: "1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that thequestion whether minimum penalty need only be imposedraised and argued by the appellant must be deemed to havebeen decided against the appellant?question whether minimum penalty need only be imposedraised and argued by the appellant must be deemed to havebeen decided against the appellant? 2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding so when there isno reference or discussion about the minimum penalty inthe order?no reference or discussion about the minimum penalty inthe order? 3) Whether this is a case where minimum penalty need only belevied?”levied?” 3. To entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, the court must be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The tests for finding whether a substantial question of law would arise or not is explained by the Apex Court in the case of M.Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 273 ITR 50 (SC). Keeping in view the settled legal position, we have gonethrough the questions of law framed by the assessee. The questions so framed, in :: 2 :: our view, does not directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties; it is notof general public importance; and it does not call for a discussion for alternative view.This only means the questions framed are pure questions of facts. Therefore, we cannotentertain this appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU)Chief Justice ahz/DK. (K.T.SANKARAN)Judge