Ita/77/2016 Of Shri Thomas John Muthoot v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938 ITA.No. 77 of 2016 () ---------------------- APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:-------------------------------- SHRI THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, THRIVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.V.VARGHESE SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: --------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING LAL BAHADUR SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bka/- APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-ACOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATEDF 22.11.2011 PASSED BY THEASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - I,THIRUVALLA ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - I,THIRUVALLA ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ANNEXURE-BCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM IN ITANO.22/CIT(AS)/KTM/11-12 DATED 09.12.2015.NO.22/CIT(AS)/KTM/11-12 DATED 09.12.2015. ANNEXURE-CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN ITANO.2/COCH/2016 DATED28.04.2016.NO.2/COCH/2016 DATED28.04.2016. RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// bka/- PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC&DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- I.T. Appeal No. 77 of 2016-------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2016 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The appeal filed by the assessee is against the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CochinBench, Cochin in I.T.A. No.2/Coch/2016 concerning theassessment year, 2009-10. 2.The issue raised in the appeal is regarding thelegality of the Assessing Officer's action in making thedisallowance of 46,78,807/- being the interest paid by₹the appellant to a firm, of which he is a partner, byinvoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. Thevery same issue was considered in the case of theappellant himself, in ITA No.288/2014 and thedisallowance was upheld by this Court. It was followingthat judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has I.T. Appeal No. 77 of 2016 ..2.. decided the case against the appellant. In suchcircumstances, the order impugned does not give rise toany question of law to be considered by this Court in thisappeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/-ANTONY DOMINICJUDGE Sd/-DAMA SESHADRI NAIDUJUDGE bka/-