Ita/19/2013 Of Olam Exports (India) Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2015/7TH JYAISHTA, 1937 I.T.A.No. 19 of 2013 -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 513/2009 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-05-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------------- OLAM EXPORTS (INDIA) LTD. NOW OLAM AGRO INDIA LTD, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR KOLLAM (PAN: ). BY ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:--------------------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE - I, KOLLAM - 691 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR. COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-05-2015,ALONG WITH ITA. 45/2013, ITA. 129/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: I.T.A.No. 19 of 2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED12.11.2007 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.2.2009PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, KOCHI. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF SECOND APPEAL DATED 16.9.2009 FILEDBY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,KOCHI. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 14.6.2011 FILEDBY THE APPELLANT'S REPRESETATIVE BEFORE THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI. ANNEXURE E: CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.5.2012PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOCHI IN ITANO.513/COCH/2009. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2015 Antony Dominic, J. JUDGMENT These appeals are filed against the orders of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A.Nos.513, 515 and 516 of 2009pertaining to the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. By the common order impugned, the Tribunal has remanded thematter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 2. Grievance of the appellant is that though in respect of the orders under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act which were impugned beforethe Tribunal they had raised the question of limitation, that was notconsidered by the Tribunal while passing the common order. Accordingto counsel, therefore, the order impugned needs to be interfered with. 3. However, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought toour notice that the issue of limitation is not specifically raised in thegrounds of appeal before the Tribunal and that therefore cannot give rise : 2 : to a question of law to be considered in this appeal filed underSection 260A of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions made. Although it is true that the question of limitation has not been specifically raised inthe grounds of appeal, we find from Annexure D, the argument notesubmitted by the appellant before the Tribunal, that the question oflimitation has been specifically raised. However, the order impugnedshow that such a question has not been considered by the Tribunal.In such circumstances, we are not impressed by the argument of thelearned Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the question oflimitation cannot give rise to question of law to be considered in thisappeal. : 2 : to a question of law to be considered in this appeal filed underSection 260A of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions made. Although it is true that the question of limitation has not been specifically raised inthe grounds of appeal, we find from Annexure D, the argument notesubmitted by the appellant before the Tribunal, that the question oflimitation has been specifically raised. However, the order impugnedshow that such a question has not been considered by the Tribunal.In such circumstances, we are not impressed by the argument of thelearned Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the question oflimitation cannot give rise to question of law to be considered in thisappeal. 5. Though it is true that the issue of limitation was notconsidered by the Tribunal and in that sense the order is vitiated, stillhaving regard to the fact that the matter is remitted by the Tribunal tothe Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, we feel that thegrievance of the appellant will be redressed if the Assessing Officer I.T.A. Nos.19, 45 & 129 of 2013 : 3 : considers the issue of limitation also while reconsidering the matterin pursuance to the order of the Tribunal. 6. In such circumstances, we dispose of these appeals directing the Assessing Officer to consider the issue of limitation also when theassessment in respect of the assessment years mentioned above arereconsidered in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal which isimpugned herein. Appeals are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jes Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE