IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 ITA.No. 143 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.9/2000 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)/RESPONDENT: -------------------- SHRI.C.GOPALAN NAIR, CHILAMBINETH, PRASANTHI, AYIROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. No.143 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. In the appeal filed by the Department, Revenue has raised a question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in clarifying their earlier order in Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee that the assessee has availed the fund of Rs.48,62,445/- from the sale of property in Vyttila. The order of the Tribunal in the appeal against block assessment appears to be final. Assessee filed a petition to clarify that the amount available with them explains investment. 2. We have heard senior counsel appearing for the Department and have gone through the original order of the Tribunal and order in the Miscellaneous application. We notice that Annexure-A agreement was accepted by the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the original appellate order held that the assessee has funds available pursuant to agreement for sale of property eventhough sale deed was not executed. However, ITA.No.143/09 2 since the Tribunal has not mentioned about the amount available the assessee filed a clarification petition which was allowed by the Tribunal. We find from the order in the Miscellaneous Petition that the clarification issued is consistent with the Tribunal's finding in the earlier order and the omission in the appellate order was only failure of the Tribunal to mention the amount. It is seen that the Tribunal has adopted the figures from Annexure-E agreement for sale produced by the Department in this appeal. We do not find any substantial question arising from the order in the Miscellaneous Application issued by the Tribunal which is only a clarification and consistent with original appellate order. Further the finding is only on facts and based on agreement produced by the assessee. We therefore dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb