Thottathil B.radhakrishnan,J v. Thottathil B.radhakrishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934 ITA.No. 30 of 2001 ( ) ------------------------------ ITA.NO.307(COCH)/1996 of IINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH FOR 1992-93 APPELLANT/ APPELLANT IN ITA (S): --------------------------------------------------- M/S.ASPINWALL & COMPANY LIMITED, CALVETTY, KOCHI 682 001 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR) BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN ITA --------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2012, ALONG WITH ITA. NO. 4/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA.No. 30 of 2001 ( ) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 'B':TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 14/02/1996ANNEXURE 'C':TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 16TH OCTOBER 2000. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P A TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN&K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A.Nos.30 of 2001 & 4 of 2005------------------------------------ Dated this the 6[th] day of August, 2012 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. The issue raised in these appeals as to whether theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in confirmingdisallowance of contribution by the appellant assessee to theExecutive Staff Provident Fund stands covered against theappellant by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench ofthis Court in Aspinwall & Co.(Travancore) Ltd. v. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) [(2007) 295ITR 553(Ker)]. The issue pointedly considered there was theapplication of sub-section 9 of section 40 of the Income TaxAct, 1951. The Bench had elaborately examined also thequestion whether the insertion of that sub-section is in linewith the judgment of this Court as noted therein. We may alsonote from the docket endorsements that these appeals were earlier tagged along with those appeals which were decided bythe Bench as per the aforesaid precedent. Having gonethrough the said precedent law, which was rendered interpartes in relation to the same question on similar set of facts,we do not find any ground to take a different view though thelearned counsel for the appellant, quite strenuously, pointedout that certain vital issues, including the effect of certaincirculars were missed by the Bench. To our query, learnedcounsel for the appellant could not point out that the assesseehad challenged the aforesaid decision rendered on threeI.T.appeals before the Apex Court. Hence, we follow theaforesaid precedent and dismiss these appeals. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge. kkb.7/8.