IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 ITA.No. 1147 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.468/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MATHER PROJECTS & CONSTRUCTIONS, MATHER SQUARE, TOWN RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018. ADV. SRI.V.J.JAMES SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I. T. A. No. 1147 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 2. The first question raised is whether the market value fixed by the assessing officer over the sale price declared by the assessee for the sale of built up area to the sister concern is sustainable. Before the first appellate authority and before the Tribunal the assessee took the stand that constructed area sold to sister concern was not full and complete and it was only partly completed and so much so as against the market value of Rs. 1500/- per sq.ft., the assessee charged only Rs. 500/- per sq.ft. We notice from the Tribunal's order that Tribunal only remanded the matter for verification of sale agreement and sale deed to find out whether the assessee's claim is genuine or not. We do not know why the Tribunal did not verify the documents by themselves. Even though we do not want to disturb the Tribunal's order, standing 2 counsel objected against the fetters introduced by the Tribunal in their order prohibiting the Officer from conducting enquiry. Since the transaction is between sister concerns, the Officer is free to conduct enquiry as to whether the purchaser concern has really made investments to make up the completion of construction of the building purchased from assessee. Therefore while confirming the order of the Tribunal, we modify the same making the remand open. 3. So far as the next question raised is concerned, we notice from the Tribunal's order that they were satisfied that there was no excess leasehold charges debited by the assessee in the P & L Account. Since the Tribunal's finding is purely one on facts, we do not want to interfere with the Tribunal's order on this issue. Therefore appeal on this issue is rejected. Appeal is therefore disposed of as stated above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk 3