Ita/70/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Thiruvana v. C.selvakumar,L/H Late N.chellappan Chett

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 ITA.No. 70 of 2008() -------------------- ITA.131/COCH/2000 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.SELAVA KUMAR AS LEGAL HEIR OF N.CHELLAPPAN CHETTIAR, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON 24/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.70 of 2008 ....................................................................Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against one of the legal heirsof the deceased assessee against whom massive demand of tax israised. The assessment pertains to the year 1975-76 and the assesseedied before completion of re-assessment under Section 147 of theIncome Tax Act. Disputed income represent additions made underSection 69 of the Income Tax Act pertaining to investments of theassessee made in Banks under bogus names. The assessee's Managerhad given clearcut statement about the investments made by theassessee in bogus names. However, assessee could not be given anopportunity to explain the investment before addition under Section69A and that is the reason why Tribunal cancelled the additions. Thequestions raised by the Revenue certainly calls for reconsideration.However, we feel this court should not waste it's time to decide the caseon merits, if ultimately Revenue cannot recover the arrears of tax from legal heirs, one of whom only is made respondent in the appeal. We, therefore, close this appeal leaving freedom to the department toconduct enquiry about the legal heirs and their assets and move petitionbefore this court to review this judgment, if all legal heirs are tracedand if they are found to have assets. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms K.SURENDRA MOHANJudge