Ita/21/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii,Cochin v. Orma Granite Palace, Angamaly

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 21 of 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 44/COCH/2004 DATED 22-06-2010 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH[BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 (UPTO 2.3.2010)] APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II,COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT: ORMA GRANITE PALACE,ANGAMALY SOUTH, ANGAMALY-683 573. BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJSRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Vinod Chandran,J. JUDGMENT The appeal arises from a block assessment madepursuant to a search conducted in the premises of the groupconcerns on 02.03.2000. The very same action under Section132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has resulted in blockassessment with respect to four different assessees, viz.,Orma Marble Palace, New Orma Marble Palace, Orma MarblePalace Pvt. Ltd. and Orma Granite Palace; all of whom aresaid to be comprised under the Orma Group of concerns.Appeals have been filed by the Revenue as against all theindividual assessees and two of them [I.T.A.Nos.13 of 2011and 29 of 2011] have been withdrawn based on the litigationpolicy. We find that the present appeal [I.T.A.No.21 of 2011]also is similarly situated insofar as the subject matter ofappeal being less than Rupees Fifty lakhs. In suchcircumstances, we do not find any reason to adjudicate uponI.T.A.No.21 of 2011, since the litigation policy restrictsthe Revenue from prosecuting the same and the connectedmatters were also withdrawn by the Revenue based on thelitigation policy. In the above circumstances I.T.A.No.21 of 2011 isdismissed based on the litigation policy; but, however,leaving the question of law to be considered in I.T.A.No.19of 2011, in which the tax effect would be more than RupeesFifty Lakhs. Parties are left to suffer their respectivecosts. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENONJUDGE APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-ACOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/3/2002 ANNEXURE-BCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/1/2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/6/2010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH,COCHIN IN IT(S&S) A NO.44/COCH/2004.ANNEXURE-DCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN IT APPEAL NO.551/2009 DATED 26/5/2010 ANNEXURE-ECOPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS.ANNEXURE-FRELEVANT PAPERS EVIDENCING SEIZURE OF DOCUMENTS, CASH AND CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT OF THE COMPUTER. Vku/- [ true copy ]