IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 ITA.No. 1793 of 2009() --------------------------- ITA.222/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------- SRI.M.K. THANKACHAN, MAMBALATH HOUSE, M.L. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs I.T.A. NO. 1793/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 158BC OF THE INCOME TAC 1961 DATED 26/09/1997. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN IT (S&S)A NO.78/COCH/97 DATED 19/06/2001. ANNEXURE C:COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 31/03/2003. ANNEXURE D:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN IT (S&S) A NO.12/COCH/2003 DATED 20/10/2008. ANNEXURE E:COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 30/03/2004. ANNEXURE F:COPY OF THE CIT (A) NO.14-K/CIT-IV/04-05 DATED 17/11/2004. ANNEXURE G:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.222/COCH/2005 DATED 16/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.P. RAY, JJ. ........................................... I.T.A.NO.1793 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J: When this appeal came up for hearing on 4.6.2010, we passed the following order: “The assessment involved in this case is a revised assessment for 1996-97. However, it is seen that a block assessment covering this period also was made and in that the Tribunal sustained a total income of above Rs.1.73 Crores. The assessee has not contested the Tribunal's order and so much so, the department should have recovered the entire tax sustained under Tribunal's orders. Standing Counsel submitted that even as of now, recovery is not made. We do not think any purpose will be served by the department getting further demand sustained against an assessee, if recovery is not possible. In sales tax cases also we have declined to waste the High Court's time for considering academic issues, if recovery is not possible from assessees. If department cannot recover the arrears, there is no point in contesting further cases against the same assessee to get empty orders without any purpose. Standing Counsel will, therefore, file a statement about recoveries made under the assessment sustained by the Tribunal for us to consider whether we should waste our time in the present appeal. The short point is that there is no purpose in department fighting cases against assessees who are bankrupt”. 2. When the matter was taken up today, Standing I.T.A.NO.1793 OF 2009 : 2 : Counsel appearing for the department submitted that the assessee has transfered all the assets in his wife's name and the departments' effort in recovering the arrears did not yield any result. A total tax of over Rupees One Crore has to be recovered from the assessee and the department has not been able to recover the said amount. 3. We do not think any purpose will be served by this Court wasting time in allowing further appeal filed by the department against the very same assessee. We, therefore dismiss this appeal. If the department is able to recover the entire amount and produces evidence before this Court that the assessee has still assets to recover the disputed tax in this case, it is open to the department at that point of time to file a review petition in this Court. Leaving this right open to the department, we dismiss this appeal. In this premises, we dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. B.P. RAY, JUDGE. cl