Rp/1100/2012 Of V.j.varghese v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH KARTHIKA, 1936 RP.No. 1100 of 2012 () IN ITA.35/2011 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 35/2011 OF HIGH COURT OFKERALA DATED 24-02-2012 REVIEW PETITIONER(S):/APPELLANT ---------------------------------------- V.J.VARGHESE VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O, TRICHUR 680 028. BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.K.N.VIKRAMATHITHYAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TRICHUR - 680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP 1100/12 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE E :COPY OF ORDER NO.V-5/ACIT-CIR-2(1)/TCR DATED04.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INCOME TAX),THRICHUR. ANNEXURE-F :CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2012 INITA NO.35 OF 2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE-G :COPY OF HEARING NOTE WITH ANNEXURE FILED BYTHE PETITIONER ON 01.03.2005. //TRUE COPY// jg PA TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................................... .................................................................... Dated this the 31[st] day of October, 2014. O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, on the substance of the grounds on which this review is sought for. 2.The judgment sought to be reviewed was issued at the stage ofadmission holding that none of the questions raised is asubstantial question of law because those pertain to unexplainedcash credit additions and claim of bad debt which are sustainedby the Tribunal based on evidence obtained pursuant to search.admission holding that none of the questions raised is asubstantial question of law because those pertain to unexplainedcash credit additions and claim of bad debt which are sustainedby the Tribunal based on evidence obtained pursuant to search. 3.We have adverted to the questions suggested as substantialquestions of law in the memorandum of income tax appeal. Wedo not see that any question relating to interpretation, applicationor any other issue in relation to law has been raised, which wouldgive rise to substantial question of law over and above what hasquestions of law in the memorandum of income tax appeal. Wedo not see that any question relating to interpretation, applicationor any other issue in relation to law has been raised, which wouldgive rise to substantial question of law over and above what has RP 1100/2012 been noted by the learned Bench while deciding the income tax appeal, at the stage of admission. We are, therefore, unable tosee any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgmentor any other reason to entertain this application for review. In the result, this review petition is dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)