IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 ITA.No. 1381 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.299/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- SHRI.K.A.BHASKARAN, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, FLORICAN ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NO. 1414 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 1381 & 1414 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Questions raised pertain to modification of income estimated by the assessing officer, and reversed by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal and also granting of exemption under Section 54 of the I.T. Act in respect of capital gains received by the assessee on sale of landed property. So far as modifications and additions are concerned, we are of the view that questions raised are only pure questions of fact. So far as the challenge against granting of exemption from capital gains is concerned, one issue raised is fixation of market value as on 1.4.1981 and the other is about exemption granted under Section 54 of the Act. Even though the document relied on for fixing the market value, as rightly pointed out by standing counsel, is not of the relevant year, still we feel the fixation of market value is also a finding of fact involving estimation. So far as granting of exemption from capital gains is concerned, the dispute raised by the 2 department is that the construction of the new building commenced prior to the previous year. However, there is no dispute that the capital gains received is invested in the new building constructed by the assessee. On the whole, we find questions raised are not substantial questions of law. Consequently the appeals filed against the common orders of the Tribunal are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3