Ita/1793/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.m.k.thankachan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 ITA.No. 1793 of 2009() --------------------------- ITA.222/COCH/2005 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): APPELLANT ----------------------------------- SRI.M.K. THANKACHAN, MAMBALATH HOUSE, M.L. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs I.T.A. NO. 1793/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 158BC OF THE INCOME TAC 1961 DATED 26/09/1997. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN IT (S&S)A NO.78/COCH/97 DATED 19/06/2001.IT (S&S)A NO.78/COCH/97 DATED 19/06/2001. ANNEXURE C:COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 31/03/2003.DATED 31/03/2003. ANNEXURE D:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN IT (S&S) A NO.12/COCH/2003 DATED 20/10/2008.IT (S&S) A NO.12/COCH/2003 DATED 20/10/2008. ANNEXURE E:COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 30/03/2004.OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 30/03/2004. ANNEXURE F:COPY OF THE CIT (A) NO.14-K/CIT-IV/04-05 DATED 17/11/2004.DATED 17/11/2004. ANNEXURE G:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.222/COCH/2005DATED 16/03/2009.DATED 16/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ svs P.A. TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.P. RAY, JJ............................................ I.T.A.NO.1793 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 1[st] day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J: When this appeal came up for hearing on 4.6.2010, wepassed the following order: “The assessment involved in this case isa revised assessment for 1996-97. However,it is seen that a block assessment coveringthis period also was made and in that theTribunal sustained a total income of aboveRs.1.73 Crores. The assessee has notcontested the Tribunal's order and so muchso, the department should have recoveredthe entire tax sustained under Tribunal'sorders. Standing Counsel submitted that evenas of now, recovery is not made. We do notthink any purpose will be served by thedepartment getting further demand sustainedagainst an assessee, if recovery is not possible.In sales tax cases also we have declined towaste the High Court's time for consideringacademic issues, if recovery is not possiblefrom assessees. If department cannot recoverthe arrears, there is no point in contestingfurther cases against the same assessee toget empty orders without any purpose.Standing Counsel will, therefore, file astatement about recoveries made under theassessment sustained by the Tribunal for usto consider whether we should waste our timein the present appeal. The short point is thatthere is no purpose in department fightingcases against assessees who are bankrupt”. 2. When the matter was taken up today, Standing I.T.A.NO.1793 OF 2009 Counsel appearing for the department submitted that theassessee has transfered all the assets in his wife's nameand the departments' effort in recovering the arrears did notyield any result. A total tax of over Rupees One Crore hasto be recovered from the assessee and the department hasnot been able to recover the said amount. 3. We do not think any purpose will be served by this 2. When the matter was taken up today, Standing I.T.A.NO.1793 OF 2009 Counsel appearing for the department submitted that theassessee has transfered all the assets in his wife's nameand the departments' effort in recovering the arrears did notyield any result. A total tax of over Rupees One Crore hasto be recovered from the assessee and the department hasnot been able to recover the said amount. 3. We do not think any purpose will be served by this Court wasting time in allowing further appeal filed by thedepartment against the very same assessee. We, thereforedismiss this appeal. If the department is able to recoverthe entire amount and produces evidence before this Courtthat the assessee has still assets to recover the disputed taxin this case, it is open to the department at that point of timeto file a review petition in this Court. Leaving this right opento the department, we dismiss this appeal. In this premises, we dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. B.P. RAY, JUDGE.