IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 1577 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.142/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR.V.K.JAYAKUMAR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 1577 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue which has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal. After hearing senior counsel and after going through the orders of the Tribunal, we do not find any substantial question of law justifying interference by us with the Tribunal's order in an appeal under Section 260A of the I.T. Act which provides for High Court's interference with orders of Tribunal only when substantial question of law arises. The respondent is a doctor running a hospital and the dispute pertains to estimation of income based on materials gathered on inspection. The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal modified the assessment pertaining to various additions and estimation of income from hospital. The contention of the revenue is that income fixed at 11% of the suppressed collection is too low. In fact the department itself has estimated the income and so much so the option to the Tribunal is to estimate income 2 by themselves if the income fixed by the department is found to be high. The Tribunal has followed the percentage of income from a decision of the Bombay High Court which also relates to the income from a hospital run by a doctor, which is the case herein also. We do not find anything wrong in the Tribunal adopting the percentage of income fixed by the Bombay High court in respect of a hospital run by a doctor. Since no substantial question of law arises on these findings, we dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3