Ita/140/2012 Of M/S.midland Lates Products Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/27TH MAGHA, 1936 ITA.No. 140 of 2012 () -----------------------(AGAINSTTHEORDERINI.T.A.NO.1834/(MDS)/2003(ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99) DATED 9/3/2012 OF THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KOCHI, RECEIVED BYTHE APPELLANT ON 18/4/2012. APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT: ----------------------- M/S.MIDLAND LATEX PRODUCTS LIMITED, 64, (OLD NO .20), RUKMANI LAKSHMIPATHI SALAI, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8 BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN ITA: -------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARDON 16-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. HARILAL, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No.140 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16[th] day of February, 2015JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal by the assessee is against an order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside the decision ofthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whereby theAppellate Commissioner had interfered with the order of theAssessing Officer, re-opening the assessment. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Revenue. 3. The short question germane for decision in thisappeal is as follows: Did the Appellate Tribunal err in law in upholding the order of theAssessing Officer re-opening the I.T.A. No.140 of 2012 assessment completed under Section143(3) of the Income Tax Act andwhether the Tribunal was right in lawin directing the Assessing Officer tore-consider the issue of exemption, ifany, available to the assessee, underSection 10A of the Income Tax Act? 4. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1998- 99. As rightly noted by the Tribunal, the only issue thatarose for decision at the hands of the Tribunal was as towhether the reopening of assessment was in accordancewith law. 5. It was noted by the Tribunal that the questionwhether there was excess relief granted on the face ofSection 10A of the Income Tax Act needed to be lookedinto as the effect of the provisos as applied for the relevantperiod had escaped the consideration of the AssessingOfficer when the initial assessment order was issued. Thisbeing apparent from a clear reading of the first assessmentorder, the Tribunal was well founded in affirming the re-opening proceedings and interfering with the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). I.T.A. No.140 of 2012 6. More particularly, we see that the order of remitmade by the Appellate Tribunal has been rendered alsonoticing that the matter stands restored on the file of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the appeal hasto be disposed of after giving opportunity of hearing to theassessee. The re-opening order having thus been affirmed,all issues as to exemptions, if any, available to theassessee, including in terms of Section 10A of the IncomeTax Act, will remain open for adjudication before theTribunal. 7. The argument on behalf of the appellant that what has led to the impugned reopening order was merely achange of opinion of the Original Assessing Officer ascontained in the Original Assessment Order does not stand.If the Assessing Officer, at the first instance, has ignoredthe very particular binding statutory provision, that byitself, would be sufficient ground on which the assessmentorder could be re-opened. The plea in that regardtherefore fails. 8. In the view of the matter, we do not see that anyground arises for decision as a question of law for 7. The argument on behalf of the appellant that what has led to the impugned reopening order was merely achange of opinion of the Original Assessing Officer ascontained in the Original Assessment Order does not stand.If the Assessing Officer, at the first instance, has ignoredthe very particular binding statutory provision, that byitself, would be sufficient ground on which the assessmentorder could be re-opened. The plea in that regardtherefore fails. 8. In the view of the matter, we do not see that anyground arises for decision as a question of law for I.T.A. No.140 of 2012 consideration in this appeal in favour of the assessee. Thisappeal, therefore, fails. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge