Ita/286/2010 Of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd,Willingdon v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax,Ekm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 ITA.No. 286 of 2010 ---------------------- ITA.703/COCH/2008 DATED 20.1.2010 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT ------------------------- HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ I.T..A. No. 286 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14[th ] day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This is an appeal filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order dated 20[th] January, 2010 in I.T.A.No.703(Coch)/2008 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. 2. The assessee supplied 100 Metric Tonnes of Black Tea toIraq. We must state here that whether the purchaser is Government of Iraqor a private party is not clear from the record. The transaction is descried asexport to Iraq in the assessment order. It appears that the said export wasmade under a scheme known as “Oil for Food Programme” monitored by theUnited Nations. We are also aware of neither the details of the scheme norwhat is meant by the expression 'monitored'. Be that as it may, in theprocess of the above mentioned supply, the appellant claimed certaindeductions from the total income of the appellant on the ground that thedeductions so claimed represent the selling commission. 3. The claim of the appellant was rejected by all the successive authorities under the Income Tax Act, i.e. the Assessing Authority, the firstAppellate Authority - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. It can be seen from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the appellant did not pursue the matter before the Tribunal. In paragraph 2 of the order it is stated as follows: “2. In spite of service of notice, none appeared onbehalf of the assessee, particularly this hearing wasgiven at the request of the Id. authorized representativein the previous hearing, i.e. on 12-11-2009. Hence, weproceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearingShri.T.J.Vincent, Id. DR.” 5. Even otherwise, the memorandum of appeal does not disclose any substantial question of law which falls for consideration ofthis Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act. The memorandum of appeal states in this regard asfollows: “The following substantial questions of law arise fordecisions of this Honourable Court: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunaljustified in disallowing the commission paid by theappellant? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunaljustified in coming to the conclusion that it is not an - 3 - allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the IncomeTax Act?” 5. It is obvious from a reading of the above that nosubstantial question of law arises in the instant appeal. The appeal istherefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns