Ita/36/2012 Of Adattil Mohammed, Hill View 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/28ND JYAISHTA 1934 ITA.No. 36 of 2012 ------------------- .NO./ IN ITA.NO.135/2011 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT:-------------------- ADATTIL MOHAMMED, HILL VIEW, CHANKUVETTY, MAIN ROAD, KOTTAKKAL. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.PREM NAVAZ J.R. SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT: ----------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOCHIKODE-673001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANN.A:COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANN.B:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANN.C:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DT.21/10/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AS THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN&K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A.No.36 of 2012 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18[th] day of June, 2012 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. On the basis of documents seized in a search in thepremises of the appellant, proceedings were initiated. Thecrux of the issue raised before us in this appeal is purely oneof fact. The documents seized showed a contract for sale fixingthe consideration at Rs.3 crores. The document of sale, i.e.,conveyance reflected consideration of Rs.64 lakhs. The wife ofthe vendee gave evidence that it was Rs.2 crores. The plea ofthe appellant is that the cheques referred to in the contract forsale itself amounts only to Rs.2 crores and not Rs.3 crores. Hewould, therefore, plea for an opportunity to cross examinewitnesses and to show before the authority as to which amongthe documents have to be preferred. In our view, on theaforesaid factual matrix, the statutory authorities and the Tribunal have ultimately reached at a particular decision andno question of law arises for consideration on the basis of suchfinding. The appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge. kkb.19/6.