Ita/44/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. P.p.bhaskaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938 ITA.No. 44 of 2012 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA No.211/Coch/2011 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 22-09-2011 APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: --------------------- P.P.BHASKARAN ROMA ELECTRICALS, PARAKKAL, MAHE-673 310. R BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) R BY ADV. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN R BY ADV. SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA No.44/2012 APPENDIX TRUE COPY p.s.to judge Antony Dominic & Dama Seshadri Naidu, JJ.------------------------------------------- ITA No.44 of 2012 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is filed by the revenue challengingthe order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Kochi in ITA No.211 of 2011, wherebyaddition of undisclosed investment made underSection 69 of the Income Tax Act was set aside bythe Tribunal. On facts, we notice that pursuant to a searchthat was conducted on 30.5.2007, assessment wascompleted under Section 143(3) read with section153C of the Income Tax Act. It is in that assessmentfor the year 2005-2006, an addition of `24,83,346/-was made at the hands of the respondent on the I.T.Appeal No.44 of 2012 2 assumption that he made such an undisclosedinvestment in a property in Koothuparamba, whichwas purchased by a firm of which he is also apartner. It is stated by the learned senior counselfor the respondent assessee that similar orderswere passed by the Tribunal in the case of otherpartners and that, based on the applications filed bythe parties, the said orders were recalled by theTribunal and that the appeals are pending before theTribunal. Taking note of the fact that the issues raised inthis appeal are now being reconsidered by theTribunal itself in ITA Nos.718, 719, 724, 725, 737and 738 of 2010 filed by the other partners of thefirm, we deem it only appropriate to set aside theorder impugned herein and remit the matter back tothe Tribunal. Accordingly, vacating the order passed by theTribunal setting aside the addition made towardsundisclosed investment for the assessment year I.T.Appeal No.44 of 2012 3 2005-2006, the matter is remitted back to theTribunal for reconsideration along with the otherappeals mentioned above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Antony Dominic, Judge Sd/- Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge css/ true copy P.S.To Judge