Ita/713/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S.super Transport Company,Kothamangala

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 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 ITA.No. 713 of 2009() -------------------------- ITA.363/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------------------ M/S. SUPER TRANSPORT CO., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI SMTS.HEMALATHA THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, ALONG WITH ITA NO.975/2009 ITA NO.1020/2009THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- I.T. Appeal Nos. 713, 975 and 1020 of 2009 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] September, 2010JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the Senior counsel appearing for the appellantand Mr.Pandalai, Advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee. After hearing both sides and after going throughthe Tribunal's orders, we do not find any merit in theappeals because the Tribunal has exonerated therespondent from liability for penalty on the ground thatanother assessee has accepted the transaction, filedreturns and paid the tax. According to the department,Sri.Sadanandan is a binami planted by the respondent andactual purchase orders are issued by the Tata Tea Limitedin favour of the respondent. However, the Tribunal foundthat Sri.Sadanandan has not given any categoric evidenceabout the respondent using him as a binami. We are ofthe view that the findings of the Tribunal are essentiallyon facts and no substantial question of law has arises from IT Appeal 713/2009 & conn.case 2 the order of the Tribunal. Further, we find that penaltyinvolved in these cases are only Rs.45,200/-, Rs.60,585/-and Rs.74,712/- respectively. We, therefore, do not findany merit in the appeals and the same are thereforedismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/