Rp/493/2019 Of 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.493 OF 2019 IN ITA. 66/2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 66/2012 OF HIGH COURTOF KERALA DATED 13.11.2018 REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: CHEKKATTU CHITTY FUNDS,RAMANCHIRA, THIRUVALLA 689 101 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. NAIRSMT.NISHA JOHNSRI.V.P.NARAYANANSMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1ST FLOOR, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC,IT THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON29.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THEFOLLOWING: RP493/2019 K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ. -------------------------------------------R.P.No.493 of 2019in ITA No.66 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 petitioner. 2.It is pointed out that the addition made bythis Court is not proper and that the Tribunal's orderought to have been upheld. It is also contended thatgoing by the monetary limit, the appeal should not havebeen entertained. The next argument is that theassessment itself is barred by limitation. 3.As to the additions or disallowance 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 RP493/2019 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. The Review Petition is therefore dismissed.No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENONJUDGE RP493/2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11-7-2018 ISSUED BY THE CBDT.