Op/13717/1999 Of Sri.cleetus Vincent v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2007 / 8TH SRAVANA 1929 OP.No. 13717 of 1999(S) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/08/1998 IN RA 136/COCH/1997 IN ITA 230/COCH/91 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH .................... PETITIONER/ASSESSEE: ----------------------------------- SHRI.CLEETUS VINCENT,C/O.OCEANIC BUILDING,SAKTHIKULANGARA, QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TRIVANDRUM. BY STANDING COUNSEL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (TAXES) SRI.P.K.R.MENON (SR) & SRI.GEORGE K.GEORGE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING CONE UP FOR ORDERS ON 30/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------ O.P.No.13717 of 1999-S & C.M.P.No.22119 of 1999 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30[th] day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Delay in filing the petition is condoned. (2) The assessee has filed this petition under Section 256(2) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), inter alia, requesting us to direct theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of lawthat would arise in I.T.A.No.230 of 1991 dated 11[th] March, 1997 for theassessment year 1980-81. The questions of law raised by the assessee areas under: “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that thereassessment is not barred by limitation? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it isSection 147(a) that applies? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee was bound to disclose that he had investedRs.5,50,000/- more than what is stated in the sale document? 4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that thefact of unaccounted investment of Rs.5,50,000/- is a materialfact relevant to that assessment year? 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material factsregarding his income of the previous year? 6. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that theassessee has invested Rs.5.50,000/- is supported by anymaterial? 7. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that theassessee has invested Rs.5,50,000/- is perverse,unreasonable and against law? 8. Whether the Tribunal was right in not holding thatassessee is liable only for ½ of the investment?” O.P.No.13717/1999 (3) The Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. Theassessee had filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Act requestingthe Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law that would arise inI.T.A.No.230 of 1991 for the assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal hasrejected the application. (4) We have carefully perused the order passed by the Tribunal andalso the questions of law raised by the assessee for consideration and decisionby this Court. In our opinion, the questions of law raised by the assesseerequire consideration by this Court. Therefore, a direction requires to be issuedto the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law that would arisein I.T.A.No.230 of 1991 dated 11[th] March, 1997 for the assessment year 1980-81. (5) Accordingly, the following: Order i) The petition is allowed. ii) A direction is issued to the Tribunal to state the case and refer thequestions of law that would arise in I.T.A.No.230 of 1991 dated 11.3.1997 forthe assessment year 1980-81 for consideration and decision by this Court, asexpeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE