Rp/650/2014 Of P.m.aboobacker v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thrissur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/12TH JYAISHTA, 1937 RP.No. 650 of 2014 () IN ITA.201/2011 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 201/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALADATED 20-03-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- P.M.ABOOBACKER PANICKAVEETTIL MARACKAPARAMBIL ORUMANAYOOR P.O. CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR-680512. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ----------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR-680501. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON02-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ& A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J---------------------------------------------- R.P.No.650 of 2014inI.T.A.No. 201 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2[nd] June, 2015O R D E R Shaffique, J. This Review Petition is filed against the judgmentdated 20.3.2014 in I.T.A.No.201 of 2011. Review petitioneris the respondent in the appeal. The appeal filed by theDepartment was allowed setting aside the orders passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and theTribunal and confirmed the order passed by the AssessingOfficer. The review petitioner contends that there isapparent error on the face of record, as this Court hadtaken note of the Annexure A statement given by oneP.A.Noushad to be a statement under Section 132(4) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On perusal of the judgment we find that thestatement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act RP.650/14 in ITA.201/11 was only one of the material relied on by us to arrive atsuch a finding. Even if the said statement was notavailable on record or can be ignored, still there is otherevidence, which is the deposition given by P.A.Noushadbefore the authorities, wherein during cross-examinationhe had accepted his earlier statement and his declarationof income from sale of property. This is a case whereP.A.Noushad had virtually admitted the fact that he hadsold the property for 7,82,00,000/-, which is borne out₹from other documents and evidence on record. Even if thestatement, which is purported to be given under Section132(4) of the Income Tax Act is ignored, we do not findany reason to review the judgment. Accordingly, theReview Petition is dismissed. ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE vgs2/6/15