SRI.HARRI JOSEPH, V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, COCHIN,

RP/1147/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a review petition filed by the respondent in an earlier income tax appeal, challenging the High Court's previous decision. The core issue was whether the Income Tax Department could take a different stance in assessment proceedings than in penalty proceedings, based on the same set of facts. The assessee, Sri. Harri Joseph, argued that the amount credited to his account was from his mother's property sale, which was not timely reported in her tax returns. The court had previously found the explanation insufficient to absolve the assessee, noting discrepancies in the claimed sale amount and the recorded deed of conveyance. The review petition sought to contest the earlier judgment, but the court dismissed it, emphasizing that the issues raised were already addressed in the original judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764562 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: P JAYABAL; P DEEPAK
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Error apparent on the face of the record; Income Tax; Penalty proceedings; Review petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941 R.P.No.1147 OF 2019 IN I.T.A. 24/2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN I.T.A.24/2014 dated 21.11.2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: SRI.HARRI JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS ROSE VILLA, KALATHIPRAMBIL, ALAPATT CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-682 016, PAN. AEEPJ6097E. BY ADVS. SRI.P.JAYABAL SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, COCHIN, (NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS MAY BE SERVED IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS) PIN – 682 011. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, IT FOR RESPONDENT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.1147 of 2019 in - 2 - ITA.24/2014 K.Vinod Chandran & Ashok Menon, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1147 of 2019 in I.T.A.No.24 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 06th day of March, 2020 ORDER K. Vinod Chandran,J: The review is filed by the respondent in the appeal on the ground that an error apparent on the face of the record has arisen, insofar as the Income Tax Department being estopped from taking a different stand in assessment proceedings contrary to the stand taken in penalty proceedings. 2. Immediately we have to notice that it cannot be taken as a proposition that the assessment would be reversed if no penalty is imposed on a proceeding taken on the same set of facts. We also pertinently observe that the very ground taken in review was answered in the judgment. 3. The contention of the assessee was that an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- which was credited to his Bank account was deposited by his mother on sale of a property. The mother admittedly had not filed a return within time showing the income. But the mother filed a return long RP.1147 of 2019 in - 3 - ITA.24/2014 after the expiry of six years, on which the Department could not take up any proceeding being hit by limitation. 4. In the judgment under review, we found that the explanation was not sufficient to absolve the assessee who received the amount. But, for the mere fact that the mother had filed a delayed return, there was nothing to substantiate the sale having occurred for an amount of Rs.74,00,000/- as claimed. The deed of conveyance showed an amount of Rs.14,00,000/-, which was admitted by the assessee and the letter produced from the purchaser also confirmed this. On the mere premise that the mother had filed a delayed return admitting the receipt of such amounts, the assessee cannot be absolved from such liability. There is nothing produced to substantiate that the credit in the assessee's account was part of the sale proceeds received by the mother; but for a self serving admission by the mother. The assessee having been absolved in the penalty proceedings, was an issue specifically considered in the judgment under review. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. What the review petitioner attempts is a re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible. RP.1147 of 2019 in - 4 - ITA.24/2014 For the reasons afore-stated, the review petition would stand dismissed in limine. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE Vku/- [ TRUE COPY ] "