IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 ITA.No. 978 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.88/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- K.M.JOSEPH BINOY, KALLARACKAL (H),OLAMATTOM,THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I. T. A. No. 978 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals), cancelling the block assessment for the reason that reference of the building constructed by the assessee for valuation to the approved valuer by the Officer is not permissible by virtue of law declared by the Supreme Court in AMIYA BALA PAUL V. CIT, 262 I.T.R. 407. Even though standing counsel for the revenue referred to Section 142A introduced with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972, we do not think the order of the Tribunal calls for interference because addition itself is not based on material gathered during search as required under Section 158BB of the I. T. Act. Consequently we dismiss the departmental appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 2