ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 894/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/02/2012 in ITA No. 323/2002 passed by High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam) P.D. ABRAHAM @ APPACHAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF I.T. (CENTRAL) & ANR. Respondent(s) (With Office Report) WITH SLP(C) No. 895/2013 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 896/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 04/08/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Dale P. Kurian, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhunima Jatia, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar ,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by requirement of Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is Meenakshi Kohli Date: 2014.08.07 that substantial question of law is required to be framed in 05:23:21 IST Reason: appeal, in case, such substantial question of law arises. 1 In present petitions, High Court has neither framed any substantial question of law nor has it come to conclusion that no substantial question of law arises. Under circumstances, we have no option but to set aside order of High Court and remand matters back for reconsideration on merits. If High Court is of opinion that substantial question of law arises, it should frame that substantial question and answer it. However, if High Court comes to conclusion that no substantial question of law arises it may pass appropriate order in that regard. petitions are disposed of in view of above. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER 2 P. D. Abraham @ Appachan v. Commissioner of I.T. (Central) & Anr