Rp/993/2015 Of Mohammed Rafi Sayed v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax (Inv), Thiruvananthapuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937 RP.No. 993 of 2015 () IN ITA.78/2014 -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 78/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED07-08-2015 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------- MOHAMMED RAFI SAYED RAJI MANZIL, KADAKKAL, MATHIRA KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 536. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ. -----------------------------------R.P.No.993 of 2015 in I.T.A.No.78 of 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2[nd ]day of March, 2016 Antony Dominic, J. The prayer sought for is to review the judgmentin ITA.78/14. That appeal was filed against theorder of the Tribunal in ITA.173/13 pertaining to theassessment year 2005-06, in which, the challenge wasagainst the correctness of the order passed by theTribunal confirming the addition of `34,55,150/-.This Court declined to entertain the appeal on theground that the issues raised before the Tribunalwere purely factual and did not give rise to anyquestion of law to be considered in an appeal filedunder section 260 A of the Income Tax Act. In thisreview petition, the contention raised by the counselfor the petitioner is that the question relating tothe taxability on investments made of non residentincome was not considered by this Court. First ofall, such a question was not argued before us andsecondly, that question is not seen argued evenbefore the Tribunal. This, therefore, shows that the RP.993/15 order of the Tribunal does not give rise to thequestion that is now pressed into service in thereview petition. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not satisfied that the petitioner has succeeded inestablishing an error apparent on the face of therecord for entertaining the review petition. Reviewpetition fails is therefore dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY, Judge. kkb. /True copy/ PS to Judge