Ita/182/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. B. Mohanachandran Nair

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/1ST KARTHIKA, 1935 ITA.No. 182 of 2012 ----------------------- ITA.NO. 151/COCH/2009 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-01-2012 ....... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC,INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------ B. MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR, PRASANTHI CASHEW COMPANY, MANGAD, KOLLAM-691 015. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ON 23-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE Kss ITA.N.182/2012 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------- I.T.Appeal No. 182 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23[rd] October, 2013 J U D G M E N T Shaffique, J. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against theorder of I.T.A.T, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 151/Coch/2009 dated 25.1.2012. The assessment relates to theyear 2001-2002. The assessee had filed the return ofincome on 28.12.2001. The assessment was completedunder Section 143 (3) of the Act as per order dated22.1.2004. The Assessing Officer reopened theassessment on the ground that the re-assessmentproceedings were proposed to be made on the basisof retrospective amendment and subsequentinterpretation of Section 80 HHC(3) by the SupremeCourt. I.T.Appeal No. 182 of 2012 2. The Tribunal found that as per the proviso toSection 147 of the IT Act, when an assessment iscompleted under Section 143 (3) or under Section147, no action shall be taken after expiry of four yearsfrom the relevant assessment year, unless the incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessment for suchassessment year on account of reason stated therein,that is by the reason of failure on the part of theassessee to make a return under S. 139 or failure ofassessee to disclose all material facts necessary forassessment, pursuant to a notice under S. 148. Sinceadmittedly the notice was issued beyond the period offour years from 31.3.2006, the reasons stated by therevenue are not sufficient to reopen the assessment. Having regard to the aforesaid finding of theTribunal, we do not think that a different view can betaken. The retrospective amendment of the law or a I.T.Appeal No. 182 of 2012 subsequent judgment of the Apex Court can never be areason to reopen the assessment under S. 147 of the ITAct. When the statute clearly prescribes the reasonunder which the assessment can be reopened, in thiscase the assessment was reopened only by notice dated30.11.2007 which admittedly is beyond the period offour years. Hence we do not think that any questionof law arises for consideration in the above appealand hence the same is dismissed. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE rka /true copy/ I.T.Appeal No. 182 of 2012