Ita/143/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kottayam v. Sri.c.gopalan Nair, Pathanamthitta

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 FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 ITA.No. 143 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.9/2000 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------- SHRI.C.GOPALAN NAIR, CHILAMBINETH,PRASANTHI, AYIROOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. No.143 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. In the appeal filed by the Department, Revenue hasraised a question as to whether the Tribunal was justified inclarifying their earlier order in Miscellaneous Petition filed bythe assessee that the assessee has availed the fund ofRs.48,62,445/- from the sale of property in Vyttila. The order ofthe Tribunal in the appeal against block assessment appears tobe final. Assessee filed a petition to clarify that the amountavailable with them explains investment. 2.We have heard senior counsel appearing for theDepartment and have gone through the original order of theTribunal and order in the Miscellaneous application. We noticethat Annexure-A agreement was accepted by the Tribunal andthe Tribunal in the original appellate order held that theassessee has funds available pursuant to agreement for sale ofproperty eventhough sale deed was not executed. However, ITA.No.143/09 since the Tribunal has not mentioned about the amount availablethe assessee filed a clarification petition which was allowed bythe Tribunal. We find from the order in the MiscellaneousPetition that the clarification issued is consistent with theTribunal's finding in the earlier order and the omission in theappellate order was only failure of the Tribunal to mention theamount. It is seen that the Tribunal has adopted the figuresfrom Annexure-E agreement for sale produced by theDepartment in this appeal. We do not find any substantialquestion arising from the order in the Miscellaneous Applicationissued by the Tribunal which is only a clarification and consistentwith original appellate order. Further the finding is only on factsand based on agreement produced by the assessee. Wetherefore dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb