Rp/1147/2019 Of Sri.harri Joseph v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941 R.P.No.1147 OF 2019 IN I.T.A. 24/2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN I.T.A.24/2014 dated 21.11.2018OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: SRI.HARRI JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARSROSE VILLA, KALATHIPRAMBIL, ALAPATT CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-682 016, PAN. . BY ADVS.SRI.P.JAYABALSRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, COCHIN,(NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS MAY BE SERVED IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS)PIN – 682 011. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, IT FOR RESPONDENT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ.--------------------------------------------R.P.No.1147 of 2019 in I.T.A.No.24 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 06[th] day of March, 2020 ORDER K. Vinod Chandran,J: The review is filed by the respondent in the appeal on the ground that an error apparent on the face ofthe record has arisen, insofar as the Income Tax Departmentbeing estopped from taking a different stand in assessmentproceedings contrary to the stand taken in penaltyproceedings. 2. Immediately we have to notice that it cannot betaken as a proposition that the assessment would bereversed if no penalty is imposed on a proceeding taken onthe same set of facts. We also pertinently observe that thevery ground taken in review was answered in the judgment. 3. The contention of the assessee was that anamount of Rs.60,00,000/- which was credited to his Bankaccount was deposited by his mother on sale of a property.The mother admittedly had not filed a return within timeshowing the income. But the mother filed a return long - 3 - after the expiry of six years, on which the Departmentcould not take up any proceeding being hit by limitation. 4. In the judgment under review, we found that theexplanation was not sufficient to absolve the assessee whoreceived the amount. But, for the mere fact that the motherhad filed a delayed return, there was nothing tosubstantiate the sale having occurred for an amount ofRs.74,00,000/- as claimed. The deed of conveyance showed anamount of Rs.14,00,000/-, which was admitted by theassessee and the letter produced from the purchaser alsoconfirmed this. On the mere premise that the mother hadfiled a delayed return admitting the receipt of suchamounts, the assessee cannot be absolved from suchliability. There is nothing produced to substantiate thatthe credit in the assessee's account was part of the saleproceeds received by the mother; but for a self servingadmission by the mother. The assessee having been absolvedin the penalty proceedings, was an issue specificallyconsidered in the judgment under review. We do not find anyerror apparent on the face of the record. What the reviewpetitioner attempts is a re-hearing of the matter, which isnot permissible. For the reasons afore-stated, the review petitionwould stand dismissed in limine. Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRANJUDGESd/-ASHOK MENONJUDGEVku/-[ TRUE COPY ]