The Main Contention Raised Is That This Court Has v. Hotel Meriya[1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/7TH BHADRA, 1938 RP.No. 715 of 2016 () IN ITA.296/2013 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 296/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALADATED 14-07-2016 REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN ITA: ---------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN ITA:---------------------------------------- PROMY KURIAKOSE PADAYATTIL HOUSE, KIDANGLOOR, ANGAMALLY. R BY SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 715 of 2016in ITA No. 296 of 2013 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2016. ORDER Antony Dominic,J. This review petition is filed by the Revenue seeking review ofthe judgment dated 14.07.2016 in ITA No. 296 of 2013. 2. We heard the learned Senior counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the assessee. 3. The main contention raised is that this Court has committed an error in answering the first question of law whetherthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding thatassessment can be made under Section 153C of the Income Tax Actin the absence of search materials for that particular year, againstthe Revenue. In this context, the learned counsel has placedreliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court inCommissioner of Income Tax v. Hotel Meriya[1]. 4. A reading of the judgment show that it was the contention of the Revenue that even in the absence of any material being1[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker) recovered in the search, assessment can be made under Section 153Cof the Act. This Court considered the said contention and rejected thesame holding that in the absence of search materials, proceedingsunder Section 153C of the Act cannot be initiated by the AssessingOfficer. It was on that basis the first question of law was answeredagainst the Revenue. However, after answering the legal questionagainst the Revenue, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, this Court alsoentered a further factual finding that in the search, sale deed dated27.10.2000 and balance sheet as on 31.03.2005 were recovered andit was therefore the Tribunal went into the merits of the assessmentand disposed of the appeals after rejecting the aforesaid contention ofthe Revenue. 5. Therefore, the question of law, according to us, was correctlyanswered. We do not find any error in the judgment under review. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.