Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. Shri.t.a.krishnaswamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN T.C. (Appeal) No.1428 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai... AppellantversusShri.T.A.Krishnaswamy.. Respondent----- PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal preferred under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench dated 12.2.2007 in ITANo.3268/Mds/2004 against the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) dated 5.10.2004 in IT/Appeal No.267/2004-2005 andagainst the order of the Income Tax Officer, Business Range – VI(3) Chennai 34 dated 31/3/2004 in AAAHT00265J. -----For Appellant:Mr.J.Narayanasamy,Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax ----- JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.) By formulating the question of law as to whether, in thefacts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right indismissing the appeal following its earlier order on the issue ofdirections by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) withoutgoing into the merits of the case to see if the re-opening wasvalid, the present Tax Case Appeal is filed. The relevantassessment year is 1998-99. 2. The assessee filed the return of income for theassessment year 1998-99 on 26.10.1998, admitting a total incomeof Rs.1,00,586/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on 11.3.2004. The assessment for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 were reopened under Section 147 and were completedon 11.3.2002. The assessee filed an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against that order. TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and gavedirection to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment forthe assessment year 1998-99 to look into the source of investmentafresh in the property of 4 plots in VGP Golden Beach as theinvestments had come out of unexplainable sources. Against thatorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assesseefiled an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. TheTribunal, by its order dated 26.7.2004, held that theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not give direction toreopen the assessment in respect of another year. In themeanwhile, the Assessing Officer, as per the direction of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), reopened the assessment andcompleted the assessment. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), following the order of theAppellate Tribunal in ITA No.23 to 26/Mds/2003 dated 26.7.2004,cancelled the reopened assessment for the assessment year 1998-99observing that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 waswrong and bad in law. Aggrieved by that order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income TaxAppellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal is filed by theRevenue, formulating the substantial question of law, as statedabove. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that as againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of theassessment years 1994-95 and 1997-98 in the assessee's own case,the Revenue filed appeals before this Court and the appeals havebeen dismissed in T.C.Nos.1380 to 1383 of 2005 by judgment dated2.1.2006 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII CHENNAI Vs. SHRIT.A.KRISHNASWAMY (HUF). The said order would squarely cover theissue to the case against the Revenue. 5. In the judgment dated 2.1.2006 in T.C.Nos.1380 to 1383 of2005 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII CHENNAI Vs. SHRIT.A.KRISHNASWAMY (HUF), to which one of us (K.RAVIRAJAPANDIAN,J.) is a party, held: 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that as againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of theassessment years 1994-95 and 1997-98 in the assessee's own case,the Revenue filed appeals before this Court and the appeals havebeen dismissed in T.C.Nos.1380 to 1383 of 2005 by judgment dated2.1.2006 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII CHENNAI Vs. SHRIT.A.KRISHNASWAMY (HUF). The said order would squarely cover theissue to the case against the Revenue. 5. In the judgment dated 2.1.2006 in T.C.Nos.1380 to 1383 of2005 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII CHENNAI Vs. SHRIT.A.KRISHNASWAMY (HUF), to which one of us (K.RAVIRAJAPANDIAN,J.) is a party, held: The reasoning stated above in the cited case would apply tothe case on hand on all fours. Following the same, the Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed. Ksv Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1. The Asst Registrar,Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Rajaji Bhavan, 3[rd] Floor Besand Nagar,Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.3. The Income Tax Officer,Business Range – VI (3)Chennai 34.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)Chennai.•1 cc to M/s. Pushyasitaraman, Advocate SR No. 70568 KM(CO)SR/7.12.2007 T.C. (Appeal) No.1428 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/