Ita/214/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kochi v. Shri K.thomas Joy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937 ITA.No. 214 of 2015 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 189/Coch/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-02-2015 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-2. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEP SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ---------------------------- SHRI K.THOMAS JOY, SEENA TRAVELS, 26/1741, KANATTU ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2010. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) II, KOCHI, DATED 10.12.2013.(APPEALS) II, KOCHI, DATED 10.12.2013. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL DATED 6.2.2015.TRIBUNAL DATED 6.2.2015. /True copy/ PS to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. -----------------------------------I.T.A.No.214 of 2015 I.T.A.No.214 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28[th] day of July, 2015JUDGMENTDated this the 28[th] day of July, 2015JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1.Annexure A order of assessment was passed for theassessment year 2008-09 where, for the purpose ofcapital gains, the assessing officer estimated fairmarket value of the property at `36,000/-, rejectingthe claim of the assessee that it was `1,00,000/- ason 1.4.1981. Similarly, towards commission paid, theassessee claimed an amount of `6,48,750/- but only`4,32,500/- was allowed. This was confirmed by thefirst appellate authority. But the appeal filed bythe assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. It is thisorder of the Tribunal which is under challenge beforeus in this appeal filed by the Revenue.assessment year 2008-09 where, for the purpose ofcapital gains, the assessing officer estimated fairmarket value of the property at `36,000/-, rejectingthe claim of the assessee that it was `1,00,000/- ason 1.4.1981. Similarly, towards commission paid, theassessee claimed an amount of `6,48,750/- but only`4,32,500/- was allowed. This was confirmed by thefirst appellate authority. But the appeal filed bythe assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. It is thisorder of the Tribunal which is under challenge beforeus in this appeal filed by the Revenue. 2.Essentially, the question that arose before theTribunal was whether the decision of the firstappellate authority to accept the fair market valueand the commission paid for sale of the propertyestimated by the assessing officer are correct orTribunal was whether the decision of the firstappellate authority to accept the fair market valueand the commission paid for sale of the propertyestimated by the assessing officer are correct or ITA.214/15 not. On appreciation of the rival contentions andmaterials on record, the Tribunal allowed the appealof the assessee. In such an adjudication, thefindings are purely in the realm of facts and thisorder passed by the Tribunal, in our view, does notgive rise to any question of law, to be considered bythis Court in an appeal under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, Judge. kkb.