SHRI.PARAYIL BALAN NAIR V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

RP/469/2017

AI Insights

The case involves a review petition filed by Shri Parayil Balan Nair against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, which upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision imposing a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in their interpretation of the property extent mentioned in an agreement dated 21.01.2008. The original dispute centered on whether the property covered by the agreement was 0.20 cents or 20 cents, which affected the assessment of a penalty for accepting a cash advance beyond the permissible limit. The court, after reviewing the submissions and the agreement, concluded that the property was indeed 0.20 cents as initially interpreted, and upheld the Tribunal's findings and the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755412 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; P K R MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; DIVYA RAVINDRAN; V P NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Income Tax; Penalty; Property Agreement; Review petition
• Section: 271D

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/25TH SRAVANA, 1939 RP.No. 469 of 2017 IN ITA.121/2014 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA 121/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 12-08-2015 --------- REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------- SHRI.PARAYIL BALAN NAIR, XI/291, RAMKRIPA, P.O.ALAVIL, KANNUR-670002, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI.SUBASH RAJANI BALAN. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KANNOTHUMCHAL, CHOVVA, KANNUR-670006. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX SRI.P.K.R. MENON (SR.), SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.469 of 2017 in I.T.A. No.121 of 2014 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of August, 2017 ORDER Antony Dominic, J. 1. aThis review petition is filed by the assessee, who was the appellant in I.T.A. No.121 of 2014. The aforesaid appeal was filed impugning the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No.460/ Coch/2013 whereby the Tribunal restored the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act. 2. In this review petition, the assessee contends that, the conclusion of the Tribunal, which was upheld by this Court that the area of the property covered by agreement dated 21.01.2008, was not 0.20 cents as assumed by the Tribunal and instead, it was 20 cents. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the improbabilities in the agreement R. P. No.469 of 2017 -2- found by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court are vitiated for an erroneous assumption of fact. 3. We have considered the submissions made. 4. First of all, the agreement, a copy of which is made available to us, describes the extent of the property as 0.20 cents. Such description of the extent, would ordinarily be taken as 20 Sq. Links, as done by the Tribunal. On the other hand, if the extent was, in fact, 20 cents, the description should have been either as 20 cents or 0.20 acres. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for its conclusion that the extent of the property is 0.20 Sq. Links. This being the factual situation, we are not persuaded to differ from the views taken by the Tribunal and in the judgment, relying on Annexure-A, a valuation report obtained subsequent to the judgment of this Court, now produced along with this review petition. 5. Even otherwise, a reading of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal would show that, in paragraph 8 of its order, the Tribunal has given reasons (a) R. P. No.469 of 2017 -3- to (g) to hold that the theory that `15 lakhs was received by the assessee as property advance under the agreement, is not a convincing one. It is only in sub para (b) that the Tribunal has held the extent of the property to be 20 Sq. Links. Even if that finding is found to be vitiated, the other reasons given by the Tribunal in para 8(a) and (c) to (g) are independent of sub para (b) and are unassailable. 6. Therefore, so long as these conclusions remain valid, which it should be, the conclusions as contained in sub para (b) cannot have any impact thereon. 7. Therefore, we are not persuaded to think that the judgment deserves to be reviewed. Review fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE R. P. No.469 of 2017 -4- "