Rp/469/2017 Of Shri.parayil Balan Nair 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. 469 of 2017IN ITA.121/2014 ---------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA 121/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED12-08-2015 --------- REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------- SHRI.PARAYIL BALAN NAIR, XI/291, RAMKRIPA, P.O.ALAVIL, KANNUR-670002, REPRESENTED BYITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI.SUBASH RAJANI BALAN. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNOTHUMCHAL, CHOVVA, KANNUR-670006. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXSRI.P.K.R. MENON (SR.), SC 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.469 of 2017 inI.T.A. No.121 of 2014 R. P. No.469 of 2017 inI.T.A. No.121 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th ]day of August, 2017Dated this the 16[th ]day of August, 2017 ORDER Antony Dominic, J. 1. aThis review petition is filed by the assessee, who was the appellant in I.T.A. No.121 of 2014. The aforesaidappeal was filed impugning the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No.460/Coch/2013 whereby the Tribunal restored the order of theAssessing Officer levying penalty under Section 271D of theIncome Tax Act. 2. In this review petition, the assessee contends that, the conclusion of the Tribunal, which was upheld by thisCourt that the area of the property covered by agreementdated 21.01.2008, was not 0.20 cents as assumed by theTribunal and instead, it was 20 cents. Therefore, accordingto the learned Counsel, the improbabilities in the agreement R. P. No.469 of 2017 found by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court are vitiatedfor an erroneous assumption of fact. 3. We have considered the submissions made. 4. First of all, the agreement, a copy of which is madeavailable to us, describes the extent of the property as 0.20cents. Such description of the extent, would ordinarily betaken as 20 Sq. Links, as done by the Tribunal. On the otherhand, if the extent was, in fact, 20 cents, the descriptionshould have been either as 20 cents or 0.20 acres.Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for its conclusionthat the extent of the property is 0.20 Sq. Links. This beingthe factual situation, we are not persuaded to differ from theviews taken by the Tribunal and in the judgment, relying onAnnexure-A, a valuation report obtained subsequent to thejudgment of this Court, now produced along with this reviewpetition. 5. Even otherwise, a reading of the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal would show that, inparagraph 8 of its order, the Tribunal has given reasons (a) R. P. No.469 of 2017 -3- to (g) to hold that the theory that `15 lakhs was received bythe assessee as property advance under the agreement, isnot a convincing one. It is only in sub para (b) that theTribunal has held the extent of the property to be 20 Sq.Links. Even if that finding is found to be vitiated, the otherreasons given by the Tribunal in para 8(a) and (c) to (g) areindependent of sub para (b) and are unassailable. 6. Therefore, so long as these conclusions remainvalid, which it should be, the conclusions as contained insub para (b) cannot have any impact thereon. 7. Therefore, we are not persuaded to think that thejudgment deserves to be reviewed. Review fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SHAJI P. CHALY kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE