JOSE KURUVINAKUNNEL Vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P17 order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a rectification application filed by the petitioner. The appeals filed by the petitioner against the re -opened assessments for the years 1996 -97 to 2000 -01, were concluded by Exhibit P11. The petitioner filed a rectification application, mainly on three grounds; (i) that the account of one Sri. Francis Joseph, brother -in -law of the petitioner, was found to be actually owned and operated by the petitioner, without looking into the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. K. Chinnathamban : [(2007) 292 ITR 682 (SC)]; (ii) that cash credit additions were made without looking into the High Court decisions placed on record by the assessee; and (iii) that one other brother -in -law, being Sri. George Joseph, had specifically accepted a loan granted to the petitioner, which was not considered on the basis of the dictum of the decisions placed by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

(2.) ESSENTIALLY the contention is that, the dictum of the decisions placed by the petitioner were not looked into by the Tribunal before disposing of the appeals and, hence, the same would be a ground for rectification. The petitioner also places before this Court a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [ : (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC)].

(3.) THE facts in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra) are clearly distinguishable. Herein, the contention of the petitioner is that there is no reasoning in so far as the decisions placed before the Tribunal being repelled as not applicable. Exhibit P11 order of the Tribunal, in appeal, discloses that the decisions placed by the petitioner were specifically referred to. The facts relating to each of the grounds, raised subsequently in the rectification application, were also gone into. On an appraisal of the facts, it was found that the decisions placed by the assessee were not applicable to the facts. The petitioner's grievance seems to be in so far as the Tribunal having not elaborately considered the dictum of the various decisions and negatived the applicability; on sufficient reasoning.