IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 1598 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/06/2004 IN ITA 250/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN ITA 350/C/04 ------------------------------------------------------- MR.C.J.DOMINIC, PROP., C.I.VAREED AND COMPANY, CHITTATTUKARA, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN ITA 350/C/04 ----------------------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RANGE-I, TRICHUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY SENIOR SC SRI.P.K.R. MENON THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 1598 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant. So far as first question is concerned, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is confirmed not only because Rule 6DD was not in force during some period, but also that the first appellate authority found that the circumstances stated in Rule 6DD to justify allowance of cash payments do not exist. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals). We do not find any substantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal on this issue. So far as second question is concerned, the amount involved is only below Rs. 2000/- and therefore we dismiss the appeal leaving it open to the assessee to raise the question in appropriate case for any other year. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 2