Sri. Thomas Muthoot, Alappuzha V. The ACIT, Thiruvalla

MA 107/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2591 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN

Judgement Text

1 MA NOS.102, 105 & 106/COCH/2014 MA NOS.107 TO 109/COCH/2014 MA NOS 110 TO 112/COCH/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI CHANDRA PO OJARI (AM) M.P. NOS 102, 105 & 106/COCH/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NOS.583/COCH/2010 & ITA NOS 6 3&64/COCH/2014) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) SHRI THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT VS ACIT, CIR.1, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY THIRUVALLA PAN : ABNPT4693G (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) M.P. NOS.107 TO 109/COCH/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NOS 83 TO 85/COCH/2014) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) SHRI THOMAS MUTHOOT VS ACIT, CIR.1, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY THIRUVALLA PAN : AEAPM0424L (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) M.P. NOS 110 TO 112/COCH/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NOS.70 TO 72/COCH/2014) (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) SHRI THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT VS ACIT, CIR.1, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY THIRUVALLA PAN : ABNPT4694B (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R SREENIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. JOHN DATE OF HEARING : 21-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-12-2014 2 MA NOS.102, 105 & 106/COCH/2014 MA NOS.107 TO 109/COCH/2014 MA NOS 110 TO 112/COCH/2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) ALL THESE APPLICATIONS WERE FILED BY THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSEES ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2076(MDS)2012 IN THE CASE OF ITO, MADURAI VS THE EKATHIR PRESS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE ATTENTIO N OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS INVITED TO P ARAGRAPH 10 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS CONSIDERED AND A CONSCIOUS DECISION HA S BEEN TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW, HOW COULD I T BE A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE CLARIFIED THAT HIS ON LY OBJECTION IS THAT THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS N OT REFERRED IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HARD SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR ALSO 3. THIS BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING TH E APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT THE MIDDLE OF PARAGRAPH 12 ON PAGE 10 OF ITS ORDER: 3 MA NOS.102, 105 & 106/COCH/2014 MA NOS.107 TO 109/COCH/2014 MA NOS 110 TO 112/COCH/2014 12 IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT WHEN DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS EXPRESSED DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON A POINT OF LAW, THEN, NORMALLY, THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT UNDER THE TAXATION LAW WOULD GO TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO EQUALLY S ETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT THE JUDGMENT WHICH DISCUSSES THE PINT IN ISSUE ELABORATELY AND GIVES AN ELABORATE REASONING HAS TO BE PREFERRED WHEN COMPARED TO THE JUDGMENT WHICH HAS N O REASONING AND DISCUSSION.. 4. THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOW THAT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THEEKATHIR PRESS (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERED. WHAT IS OMITTED IS THAT IN THE CAUSE T ITLE OF THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THEEKATHIR PRESS (SUPRA) IS OMITTED TO BE TYPED IN THE ORDER. THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICTING JUDICIAL OPINION, THE VIEW WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED, HAS BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RULE OF INT ERPRETATION, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS NOT GIVEN A NY REASONING FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED THEREIN. HOWEVER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS ADDL CIT (2012) 70 DTR 81 AND FOUND T HAT IT CANNOT BE A 4 MA NOS.102, 105 & 106/COCH/2014 MA NOS.107 TO 109/COCH/2014 MA NOS 110 TO 112/COCH/2014 GOOD LAW. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CON STRUCTION AS INTERPRETED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND THE SUPREME COURT, THIS TR IBUNAL PREFERRED TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF OMISSION TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE CHENNAI BE NCH DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF AND A CONSCIOUS DECISION HAS BEE N ARRIVED AT BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO ERROR, MUCH LESS, A PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 05 TH DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 05 TH DECEMBER, 2014 PK/- 5 MA NOS.102, 105 & 106/COCH/2014 MA NOS.107 TO 109/COCH/2014 MA NOS 110 TO 112/COCH/2014 COPY TO: 1. THOMAS MUTHOOT / THOMAS GEORGE MUTHOOT / THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT / MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY 2. ACIT, CIUR.1(1), THIRUVALLA 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, TRIVANDRUM 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH