JOSE KURUVINAKUNNEL V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/10818/2014

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Jose Kuruvinakunnel, a partner at Hotel Mayura, against the Income Tax Officer and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision on a rectification application related to re-opened assessments for the years 1996-97 to 2000-01. The main issues included the ownership of an account, unconsidered cash credit additions, and a loan acceptance by a relative, which the petitioner argued were not adequately addressed by the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the Tribunal had considered all relevant decisions and facts, and that the petitioner's concerns were more appropriate for an appeal rather than a rectification application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699969 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. K.Chinnathamban, Asst.CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: CIT v. K.Chinnathamban [(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC)], Asst.CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [(2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC)]
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH JOHN
• Keywords: Assessment years; Income Tax; Non-consideration of decisions; Rectification Application; Cash Credit Additions
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2014/23RD ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 10818 of 2014 (B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOSE KURUVINAKUNNEL, PARTNER, HOTEL MAYURA, POOVARANI, PALAI, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO 2. PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM 686001. 2. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIH BENCH, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KOCHI 682037 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 10818 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 DATED 10-03-1999 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 DATED 26-03-2004 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 DATED 26-03-2004 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 DATED 26-03-2004 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES EXCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK/ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES EXCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK/ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-09-2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS AND AFFIDAVITS DATED 06-12-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS AND AFFIDAVITS DATED 06-12-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS AND AFFIDAVITS DATED 06-12-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS AND AFFIDAVITS DATED 06-12-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 PJ ....2/- ..2.. WP(C).No. 10818 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE II MENTIONED AND FILED ALONG WITH EXT P12 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 07-02-104 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (TYPED) COMPLETED ON FRANCIS JOSEPH ON THE PEAK CREDIT LYING IN ACCOUNT NO.3075 OF FRANCIS JOSEPH EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15/3/2004 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER NAMELY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REJECTING THE REQUEST DATED 24/1/2006 EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R/W SECTION 147 DATED 26/3/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ K. Vinod Chandran, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.10818 of 2014-B ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2014 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P17 order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a rectification application filed by the petitioner. The appeals filed by the petitioner against the re-opened assessments for the years 1996-97 to 2000-01, were concluded by Exhibit P11. The petitioner filed a rectification application, mainly on three grounds; (i) that the account of one Sri.Francis Joseph, brother-in-law of the petitioner, was found to be actually owned and operated by the petitioner, without looking into the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. K.Chinnathamban [(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC)]; (ii) that cash credit additions were made without looking into the High Court decisions placed on record by the assessee; and (iii) that one other brother-in-law, being Sri.George Joseph, had specifically accepted a loan granted to the petitioner, which was not considered on the basis of the dictum of the decisions placed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. WP(C).No.10818 of 2014 - 2 - 2. Essentially the contention is that, the dictum of the decisions placed by the petitioner were not looked into by the Tribunal before disposing of the appeals and, hence, the same would be a ground for rectification. The petitioner also places before this Court a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asst.CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [(2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC)]. 3. In Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal decided an appeal of the assessee on October 27, 2000. Just prior to the decision having been rendered by the Tribunal, the jurisdictional High Court had passed a judgment in a similar matter, on the question regarding exemption, which arose in the appeal. The appellant/assessee filed a rectification application, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The Department was in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that when the decision of the jurisdictional High Court was not looked into by the Tribunal and there is non-consideration of such decision, definitely a rectification application could be filed, to call upon the Tribunal to consider the same. WP(C).No.10818 of 2014 - 3 - 4. The facts in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra) are clearly distinguishable. Herein, the contention of the petitioner is that there is no reasoning in so far as the decisions placed before the Tribunal being repelled as not applicable. Exhibit P11 order of the Tribunal, in appeal, discloses that the decisions placed by the petitioner were specifically referred to. The facts relating to each of the grounds, raised subsequently in the rectification application, were also gone into. On an appraisal of the facts, it was found that the decisions placed by the assessee were not applicable to the facts. The petitioner's grievance seems to be in so far as the Tribunal having not elaborately considered the dictum of the various decisions and negatived the applicability; on sufficient reasoning. 5. That, however, is a matter to be agitated in appeal and not in a rectification application. This Court cannot assume that merely for the reason that the Tribunal found that the decisions are not applicable, the Tribunal would not have gone into the dictum laid down therein. The grievance of the petitioner stems more from the quality of the discussion made by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble WP(C).No.10818 of 2014 - 4 - Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision was concerned with the decision of the jurisdictional High court, having not even been placed before the Tribunal; which led to a rectification on noticing the same. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the rectification application filed was, rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. However, this Court would hasten to add that this Court has not looked into the various grounds raised by the petitioner; nor would it be within the scope of the present writ petition, which assails the rejection of the rectification application alone. Leaving open the liberty of the petitioner, to agitate his contentions on merits, before the appropriate forum, the writ petition stands dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- ( true copy ) "