Itr/1/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.p.gopalakrishnan Nair

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 1938 ITR.No. 1 of 2009 ---------------------- R.A. No. 255/Coch/1998 (ITA 497/1995) of THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL., COCHIN BENCH APPLICANT: ------------- THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXTRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SHRI P.K.R. MENON (SR) RESPONDENT: --------------SHRI. P. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIRGOVERNMENT CONTRACTORLAKSHMI NIVAST.C. NO. 36/952,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SMT.VANDANA MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN THIS INCOME TAX REFERENCE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN& ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. ===========================I. T. R. No. 1 of 2009=========================== Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2016 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This reference under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is in relation toan assessee who is a Government Contractor.an assessee who is a Government Contractor. 2.We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the Departmentand the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee. and the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee. 3.The sum and substance of the issues revolves around theAppellate Tribunal's decision allowing deletion of an amount ofRs.1,93,030/- which represented secured advance received bythe assessee during the preceding previous year and claimedAppellate Tribunal's decision allowing deletion of an amount ofRs.1,93,030/- which represented secured advance received bythe assessee during the preceding previous year and claimed ITR 1/2009 as a deduction. While the reference is on two questions, viz.,whether such a deduction is permissible and secondly, whetherthe said decision is perverse or not, we need to notice that inparagraphs 6 and 7 of its order, the Tribunal noted thematerials which were placed before it. The manner in whichthose paragraphs are housed would show that the Tribunal hasapplied mind to those materials and has thus adverted to andconsidered those materials on record. With the availability ofsuch materials on record and consideration having also beenexpressed in those paragraphs, it will not be proper for us tosay that the reasoning process or the conclusions are perverse.May be, it is a case where the Tribunal could have elaboratedlittle further in paragraph 8 of its order. But, taking paragraphs6, 7 and 8 of the impugned order of the Tribunal as a whole, weare satisfied that the Tribunal was justified on the basis of thefacts and materials to hold that the assessee was entitled to thededuction. 4. We, therefore, do not find our way to hold that the Tribunal'sorder is erroneous in law. We answer the reference by holdingthat the Tribunal's order impugned in this matter is not vitiatedorder is erroneous in law. We answer the reference by holdingthat the Tribunal's order impugned in this matter is not vitiated ITR 1/2009 on any count of law as referred to in the statement of the case,or otherwise. Reference is answered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE ks Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge