Ita/1071/2009 Of Shri.m.r.somarajan,Amba Rubber Industris v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kottayam
High Court
11 Aug 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1071/2009 Of Shri.m.r.somarajan,Amba Rubber Industris v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kottayam
Date of order
11 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/1071/2009 Of Shri.m.r.somarajan,Amba Rubber Industris v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kottayam, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Consequently we dismiss the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931
ITA.No. 1071 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.655/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT
-----------------------------
SHRI.M.R.SOMARAJAN,
AMBA RUBBER INDUSTRIES,
THAMPALAKKADU, KANJIRAPPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.1071 of 2009
....................................................................Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard counsel for the appellant. We do not find any justificationfor entertaining the appeal because the unexplained expenditure madeby the petitioner was confirmed by the proposed vendor of the propertywho is none other than a Priest who has stated that the agreement forsale of property was with the appellant and that all the payments weremade by him. The appellant's plea is that he is only benami for others.However, strangely he could not produce the person for whom he hascontracted for purchase of the property and who provided the moneyfor the transaction. Consequently we dismiss the appeal.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.