Ita/204/2013 Of K.t.joseph v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013/8TH SRAVANA, 1935 ITA.No. 204 of 2013 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 613/2011 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 28-03-2013 ....................................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------- K.T.JOSEPH 50/1772, YUVAJANA SAMAJAM ROAD, KADAVANTHRA KOCHI-20. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BOBY JOHN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:- RESOPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL /TRUE COPY/P.A.TO JUDGE DCS THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................. I.T.A. No.204 of 2013 ....................................................... Dated this the 30[th] day of July, 2013JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and thelearned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. 2.Among the two grounds sought to be raised in support of theI.T.Appeal, the second is essentially a question of fact. Thefirst question is regarding the validity of additions madeunder Section 153A of the Income Tax Act for theassessment year concerned, allegedly, in the absence of anyincriminating material. The order of the Tribunal clearlyrecords in paragraph 6 thereof that the assessee'srepresentative did not advance submissions on that issue.Under such circumstances, we are not impressed by thesubmissions on behalf of the assessee that if that were so,the Tribunal should not have made further observations.Hence, we do not see that any question as question No.1 I.T.A. No.204 of 2013 2 formulated in the memorandum of appeal before us arisesfrom the order of the Tribunal. IT Appeal fails. The same isaccordingly dismissed in limine. sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) AMV/31/7/ sd/-(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)