Rp/492/2019 Of M/S.chekkattu Chitty Funds v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.492 OF 2019 IN ITA. 212/2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 212/2012 OF HIGH COURTOF KERALA DATED 13.11.2018 REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: M/S.CHEKKATTU CHITTY FUNDSRAMANCHIRA, THIRUVALLA-689101, PRESENTLY-C/O.CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THADIYOOR P.O, TIRUVALLA-689 545, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSRI.V.P.NARAYANANSRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,1ST FLOOR, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC,IT DEPT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON29.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP NOS.498 AND 500 OF 2019, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPs 492, 498 & 500/2019 K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.492 of 2019 in ITA No.212 of 2012,R.P.No.498 of 2019 in ITA No.70 of 2012 &R.P.No.500 of 2019 in ITA No.214 of 2012------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2019 O R D E R Vinod Chandran, J. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.M.Sreedharan appearsfor the review petitioners. 2.It is pointed out that the additions made bythis Court are not proper and that the Tribunal's orderought to have been upheld. It is also contended thatgoing by the monetary limit, the appeals should nothave been entertained. The next argument is that theassessment itself is barred by limitation. 3.As to the additions or disallowances made, thecontention essentially is for re-hearing the matter.The confined power available for review is only forcorrection of errors apparent on the face of therecords. We do not see any such errors since thejudgment considered the various aspects and the law on the subject to answer the questions of law framed infavour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 4.With respect to the monetary limit andlimitation, admittedly, no such ground was raised atthe time of hearing. The limitation question was notat all agitated even before the statutory authorities.In such circumstances, we do not find any reason toreview the judgment. These Review Petitions are thereforedismissed. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE