Ita/1147/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mather Projects & Constructions Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 ITA.No. 1147 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.468/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MATHER PROJECTS & CONSTRUCTIONS, MATHER SQUARE, TOWN RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018. ADV. SRI.V.J.JAMES SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant and counselappearing for the respondent-assessee. 2. The first question raised is whether the market value fixed bythe assessing officer over the sale price declared by the assessee for thesale of built up area to the sister concern is sustainable. Before thefirst appellate authority and before the Tribunal the assessee took thestand that constructed area sold to sister concern was not full andcomplete and it was only partly completed and so much so as againstthe market value of Rs. 1500/- per sq.ft., the assessee charged only Rs.500/- per sq.ft. We notice from the Tribunal's order that Tribunal onlyremanded the matter for verification of sale agreement and sale deed tofind out whether the assessee's claim is genuine or not. We do notknow why the Tribunal did not verify the documents by themselves.Even though we do not want to disturb the Tribunal's order, standing counsel objected against the fetters introduced by the Tribunal in theirorder prohibiting the Officer from conducting enquiry. Since thetransaction is between sister concerns, the Officer is free to conductenquiry as to whether the purchaser concern has really madeinvestments to make up the completion of construction of the buildingpurchased from assessee. Therefore while confirming the order of theTribunal, we modify the same making the remand open. 3. So far as the next question raised is concerned, we notice fromthe Tribunal's order that they were satisfied that there was no excessleasehold charges debited by the assessee in the P & L Account. Sincethe Tribunal's finding is purely one on facts, we do not want to interferewith the Tribunal's order on this issue. Therefore appeal on this issueis rejected. Appeal is therefore disposed of as stated above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge.