Ita/7/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jayaram Das Devadasan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/18TH PHALGUNA, 1938 ITA.No. 7 of 2017 () --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 74/COCH/2016 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 11-08-2016 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------------------------------------------ JAYARAM DAS DEVADASAN DEVADEEPAM, T.C 3/2035, LIC LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAXACT, 1961 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29.12.2011.ACT, 1961 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29.12.2011. ANNEXURE B:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO.20/SAL/TVM/CIT(A),TVM/2011-12 DATED 14.12.2015 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM.TVM/2011-12 DATED 14.12.2015 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE C:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH,KOCHI IN ITA NO.74/COCH/2016 DATED 11.08.2016.KOCHI IN ITA NO.74/COCH/2016 DATED 11.08.2016. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Income Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2017 ( ) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9[th] day of March, 2017. JUDGMENT Anonty Dominic,J. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellantand considered the submissions made. 2. This appeal filed by the Revenue is aggrieved by an orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No.74/Coch/2016 concerning the assessment year 2009-2010. The issueraised is whether 2.02 acres of land owned by the assessee is liablefor capital gain tax or not. By the impugned order, the Tribunal hadaccepted the case of the assesee that it is an agricultural land and onthat basis the Tribunal set aside the order of assessment which wasconfirmed by the First Appellate Authority. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, we findthat the assessee and his mother owned 10.28 acres of land inAndoorkonam Panchayath in Thiruvananthapuram District and out of10.28 acres of land, the assessee has 2.02 acres of land as his share,which is the subject matter of the proceedings. From the order, wefind that proceedings for levy of capital gain tax initiated against theassessee's mother in respect of the balance 8.26 acres of land ended in an order of the Department itself, whereby her case that it is anagricultural land has been accepted by the Department and that orderhas attained finality. There is no material either before this Court orbefore the statutory authorities to indicate that 2.02 acres of land ownedby the assessee is in any manner different from the remaining portionheld by the mother. In such a situation, we do not see any reason forthe Department to take a different view in the case of the land owned bythe assesee. 4. We, therefore, fully agree with the order passed by the Tribunaland it does not give rise to any question of law to be considered by thisCourt in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv