Ita/1598/2009 Of Mr.c.j.dominic v. The Income Tax Officer, W-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 1598 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/06/2004 IN ITA 250/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN ITA 350/C/04 ------------------------------------------------------- MR.C.J.DOMINIC, PROP., C.I.VAREED AND COMPANY, CHITTATTUKARA, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN ITA 350/C/04 ----------------------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RANGE-I, TRICHUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY SENIOR SC SRI.P.K.R. MENON THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant. So far as first question isconcerned, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is confirmed not onlybecause Rule 6DD was not in force during some period, but also thatthe first appellate authority found that the circumstances stated in Rule6DD to justify allowance of cash payments do not exist. The Tribunalconfirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals). We do not find anysubstantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal onthis issue. So far as second question is concerned, the amount involvedis only below Rs. 2000/- and therefore we dismiss the appeal leaving itopen to the assessee to raise the question in appropriate case for anyother year. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge.