The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mather Projects & Constructions on 8 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ITA.No. 1147 of 2009()


1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MATHER PROJECTS & CONSTRUCTIONS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.J.JAMES

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :08/02/2010

 O R D E R
                  C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                        P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
                  --------------------------------------------
                       I. T. A. No. 1147 OF 2009
                  --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel

appearing for the respondent-assessee.

2. The first question raised is whether the market value fixed by

the assessing officer over the sale price declared by the assessee for the

sale of built up area to the sister concern is sustainable. Before the

first appellate authority and before the Tribunal the assessee took the

stand that constructed area sold to sister concern was not full and

complete and it was only partly completed and so much so as against

the market value of Rs. 1500/- per sq.ft., the assessee charged only Rs.

500/- per sq.ft. We notice from the Tribunal’s order that Tribunal only

remanded the matter for verification of sale agreement and sale deed to

find out whether the assessee’s claim is genuine or not. We do not

know why the Tribunal did not verify the documents by themselves.

Even though we do not want to disturb the Tribunal’s order, standing

2

counsel objected against the fetters introduced by the Tribunal in their

order prohibiting the Officer from conducting enquiry. Since the

transaction is between sister concerns, the Officer is free to conduct

enquiry as to whether the purchaser concern has really made

investments to make up the completion of construction of the building

purchased from assessee. Therefore while confirming the order of the

Tribunal, we modify the same making the remand open.

3. So far as the next question raised is concerned, we notice from

the Tribunal’s order that they were satisfied that there was no excess

leasehold charges debited by the assessee in the P & L Account. Since

the Tribunal’s finding is purely one on facts, we do not want to interfere

with the Tribunal’s order on this issue. Therefore appeal on this issue

is rejected.

Appeal is therefore disposed of as stated above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(P.S. GOPINATHAN)
Judge.

kk

3