Ita/1565/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvpm v. Late S.sasidharan By Smt.sreeja, Widow

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 1565 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.589/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- LATE S.SASIDHARAN, REP. BY SMT.SREEJA, WIDOW, SMT.MAHALAXMI, DAUGHTER & SMT.BHAVANI,MOTHER,(LEGAL HEIRS), KAILAS BUNGALOW, MAMPALLIKUNNAM, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NOS.1592, 1593 & 1599 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal Nos.1565,1592,1593 & 1599 of 2009 ....................................................................Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. These appeals are filed by the Revenue challenging the orders ofthe Tribunal confirming orders of the first appellate authority refixingthe income of the assesee for the various years. Prior to theassessments involved in these cases, assessee was subjected to searchand a block assessment was made wherein huge addition was maderepresenting loans advanced by the assessee, interest earned thereonetc. However, assessee went before the Settlement Commission whichrefixed the income at around 50% of the income determined inassessment. The department appears to have accepted the order of theSettlement Commission. In fact, the assessments involved in thesecases were also completed based on income fixed based on the blockassessment. In first appeal, the C.I.T. (Appeal) after noticing themodification of income made by Settlement Commission and afterconsidering the evidence produced by the assessee, redetermined the income against which department filed appeals, which were dismissedby the Tribunal. In these appeals the only contention is that theappellate authority before allowing the appeals did not grant sufficientopportunity to the Assessing Officer in terms of the requirement ofRule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The right of the first appellateauthority to remand the cases in appeal proceeding is restricted througha statutory amendment. Therefore, necessarily he has to decide thecase on merits in appeals. So far as denial of opportunity to theAssessing Officer in terms of Rule 46A is concerned, the Tribunalnoticed that the C.I.T.(Appeal) has only relied on order of theSettlement Commission and documents produced before it. These arematters within the knowledge of the assessing authority and therefore,the Tribunal rightly held that denial of opportunity to the departmenthas not caused any prejudice to it. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Consequently appeals aredismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms V.K.MOHANANJudge