Harri Joseph v. The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Cochin
[Citation -2020-LL-0306-56]

Citation 2020-LL-0306-56
Appellant Name Harri Joseph
Respondent Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Cochin
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/03/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags review petition • mistake apparent from record
Bot Summary: 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. 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. 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. 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.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941 R.P.No.1147 OF 2019 IN I.T.A. 24/2014 AGAINST 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: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, COCHIN, (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS MAY BE SERVED IN 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, COURT ON SAME DAY PASSED 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 06th day of March, 2020 ORDER K. Vinod Chandran,J: review is filed by respondent in appeal on ground that error apparent on face of record has arisen, insofar as Income Tax Department being estopped from taking different stand in assessment proceedings contrary to stand taken in penalty proceedings. 2. Immediately we have to notice that it cannot be taken as proposition that assessment would be reversed if no penalty is imposed on proceeding taken on same set of facts. We also pertinently observe that very ground taken in review was answered in judgment. 3. contention of assessee was that amount of Rs.60,00,000/- which was credited to his Bank account was deposited by his mother on sale of property. mother admittedly had not filed return within time showing income. But mother filed return long RP.1147 of 2019 in - 3 - ITA.24/2014 after expiry of six years, on which Department could not take up any proceeding being hit by limitation. 4. In judgment under review, we found that explanation was not sufficient to absolve assessee who received amount. But, for mere fact that mother had filed delayed return, there was nothing to substantiate sale having occurred for amount of Rs.74,00,000/- as claimed. deed of conveyance showed amount of Rs.14,00,000/-, which was admitted by assessee and letter produced from purchaser also confirmed this. On mere premise that mother had filed delayed return admitting receipt of such amounts, assessee cannot be absolved from such liability. There is nothing produced to substantiate that credit in assessee's account was part of sale proceeds received by mother; but for self serving admission by mother. assessee having been absolved in penalty proceedings, was issue specifically considered in judgment under review. We do not find any error apparent on face of record. What review petitioner attempts is re-hearing of matter, which is not permissible. RP.1147 of 2019 in - 4 - ITA.24/2014 For reasons afore-stated, review petition would stand dismissed in limine. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE Vku/- [ TRUE COPY ] Harri Joseph v. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Cochin
Report Error