Op/7524/1996 Of The Commr. Of Income Tax,Kochi v. M/S.khader Kunju & Co., Alwaye

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 TUESDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2007 / 9TH SRAVANA 1929 OP.No. 7524 of 1996(S) -------------------------------- RA NO.221/COCH/1994 IN ITA NO.333/COCH/1988 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH PETITIONER: ------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,COCHIN. BY STANDING COUNSEL, GOVT. OF INDIA (TAXES) SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M/S.KHADER KUNJU & CO., ALWAYE. ADDL. 2. SRI.A.K.ABDUL KAREEM, AANAKKATTU HOUSE, ONODYMOOLA, KODIKUTHUMALA, NEAR CHOONDY, ALUVA. ONODYMOOLA, KODIKUTHUMALA, NEAR CHOONDY, ALUVA. 3. SMT.BUSHARA ABDUL KAREEM, W/O.SRI.A.K.ABDUL KAREEM, AANAKKATTU HOUSE, ONODYMOOLA, KODIKUTHUMALA, NEAR CHOONDY, ALUVA. AANAKKATTU HOUSE, ONODYMOOLA, KODIKUTHUMALA, NEAR CHOONDY, ALUVA. 4. SMT.SABIRA MOHAMMED ALI, HAMD, EDATHALA, CHOONDY, ALUVA. (ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.28.5.2007 IN IA 13909/2006) BY ADV. SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN (SR.) SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.T.Sankaran, J. ------------------------------------------------------- O.P.No.7524 of 1996-S --------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 31[st ] day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The Revenue has filed this Original Petition under Section 256(2)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), inter alia, requesting us to directthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions oflaw that would arise in I.T.A.No.333/Coch)/1988 dated 20[th] July, 1994 for theassessment year 1982-83. The questions of law raised by the Revenue areas under: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering withthe assessment of income from property for the entire period ofone year? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there can bedistribution/partition of asset among the partners when thepartnership is subsisting”? (2) The Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue had filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Actrequesting the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law thatwould arise in I.T.A.No.333/Coch)/1988 for the assessment year 1982-83. TheTribunal has rejected the application. (3) We have carefully perused the order passed by the Tribunaland also the questions of law raised by the Revenue for consideration anddecision by this Court. In our opinion, the questions of law raised by theRevenue require consideration by this Court. Therefore, a direction requires to be issued to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law thatwould arise in I.T.A.No.333/Coch)/1988 dated 20[th] July, 1994 for theassessment year 1982-83. (4) 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.333/Coch)/1988 dated 20[th] July,1994 for the assessment year 1982-83 for consideration and decision by thisCourt, as expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice vku/- K.T.Sankaran Judge