Ita/904/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S.bhima Jewel Corporation, M.g.road

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 ITA.No. 904 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.901/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- BHIMA JEWEL CORPORATION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, ALONG WITH ITA NO.971 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal Nos.904 & 971 of 2009 ....................................................................Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.Sri.Arun Raj.S., appearing for the respondent-assessee. The tax effectin both the cases are below the limit for the department to maintainappeal before this court. However, Standing Counsel submitted thatissue is recurring and so much so, under the exemption clausecontained in the particular Circular of 2005, appeals are maintainable.The contention of assessee's counsel is that assessee closed downbusiness shortly after 1998-99 and therefore, the issue will not recur inassessee's case. Further, we notice from the assessment order for 1997-98 that the Assessing Officer himself accepted the assessee's claim thatit was engaged in financing, though loans were given only to sisterconcerns. Since the business is closed, we do not think the issue canbe treated as a recurring issue in assessee's case. There is nothing toindicate that similar issue will arise in the case of other assessees to fall within the exemption clause of Board Circular because facts vary from assessee to assessee. Since the tax effect is below Rs.2 lakhs in boththe cases, we dismiss both the appeals as not maintainable. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms V.K.MOHANANJudge