IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 ITA.No. 286 of 2010 ---------------------- ITA.703/COCH/2008 DATED 20.1.2010 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT ------------------------- HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ I.T..A. No. 286 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This is an appeal filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2010 in I.T.A.No.703(Coch)/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. 2. The assessee supplied 100 Metric Tonnes of Black Tea to Iraq. We must state here that whether the purchaser is Government of Iraq or a private party is not clear from the record. The transaction is descried as export to Iraq in the assessment order. It appears that the said export was made under a scheme known as “Oil for Food Programme” monitored by the United Nations. We are also aware of neither the details of the scheme nor what is meant by the expression 'monitored'. Be that as it may, in the process of the above mentioned supply, the appellant claimed certain deductions from the total income of the appellant on the ground that the deductions so claimed represent the selling commission. 3. The claim of the appellant was rejected by all the successive authorities under the Income Tax Act, i.e. the Assessing Authority, the first Appellate Authority - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. I.T.A.No.286 of 2010 - 2 - 4. It can be seen from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the appellant did not pursue the matter before the Tribunal. In paragraph 2 of the order it is stated as follows: “2. In spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, particularly this hearing was given at the request of the Id. authorized representative in the previous hearing, i.e. on 12-11-2009. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing Shri.T.J.Vincent, Id. DR.” 5. Even otherwise, the memorandum of appeal does not disclose any substantial question of law which falls for consideration of this Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The memorandum of appeal states in this regard as follows: “The following substantial questions of law arise for decisions of this Honourable Court: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in disallowing the commission paid by the appellant? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that it is not an I.T.A.No.286 of 2010 - 3 - allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act?” 5. It is obvious from a reading of the above that no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns