Rp/1156/2015 Of M/S.kerala Sponge Iron Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/25TH SRAVANA, 1939 RP.No. 1156 of 2015 IN ITA.195/2014 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA 195/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-08-2015 ----------- REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- M/S.KERALA SPONGE IRON LTD XV/D NO.810, MANTHURUTHY, KANJIKODE WEST P.O., PALAKKAD,KERALA-678623 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI.VIVEKAGARWAL. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXSRI.P.K.R. MENON (SR.) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.1156 of 2015 inI.T.A. No.195 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16[th ]day of August, 2017 ORDER Antony Dominic, J. 1. aHeard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for theRevenue. 2. By this application, the respondent in I.T.A. No.195 of 2014 is seeking review of the judgment dated 19.08.2015 whereby the questions of law framed for consideration ofthis Court was answered in favour of the Revenue and theorder of the Tribunal was set aside. 3. The contention now raised by the learned SeniorCounsel to impugn the judgment of this Court as erroneous,is that from Ext.R1 series of documents now produced, it isobvious that the receipts by the assessee from M/s Vatika Merchants Private Limited were through banking channels and therefore, could not have been treated as unexplainedcash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. However, having considered the contention raised,we are unable to accept the same. It is obvious from thejudgment under review that before the Assessing Officeritself, M/s Vatika Merchants Private Limited had confirmedthe transactions between the assessee and M/s Vatika. Thiswas considered by the Assessing Officer and the AssessingOfficer treated the receipts as unexplained cash credit forthe reason that M/s National Multi Commodity Exchange ofIndia had confirmed that M/s Vatika Merchants (supra) wasexpelled from the exchange long prior to the transactions inquestion. Further, it was also confirmed that the assessee isa non-existent client under any member of the exchange. 5. Taking into account, these facts and the fact thatthe assessee had not produced any material to contradictthe statement of the exchange, the Assessing Officer held R. P. No.1156 of 2015 the claim of generation of commodity trading profit of`5,13,55,093/- as a sham and a bogus one. Therefore,Annexure-R series of documents now relied on would notimprove the case of the assessee in any manner. 6. In any event, the judgment contains the reasons for the conclusions of this Court and if the assessee isaggrieved by those conclusions, the remedy of the assesseeis to challenge the judgment before the appellate forum. Review, therefore, is not maintainable and isaccordingly dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC Sd/- JUDGE SHAJI P. CHALY kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE