Ita/20/2013 Of Geosoft Technologies, Trivandrum 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 BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/17TH JYAISHTA 1935 ITA.No. 20 of 2013 () ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 279/COCH/2011 DATED 10.08.2012 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES (TRIVANDRUM) LTD., NO. 233/241, NILA, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS KARYAVATTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR V.S.PRADEEP. BY ADVS.SRI.K.D.BABU SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR KUM.P.G.GAYATHRI SRI.V.SURESH (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON07-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA 20/13 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A :COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THEAY 2006-07. ANNEXURE A1 :COPY OF THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT. ANNEXURE A2 :COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE AY 2006-07. ANNEXURE A3 :COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCESHEET - AY 2006-07. ANNEXURE B :COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 141(1) OF THE IT ACT. ANNEXURE C :COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED10.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE C1 :COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.12.2008 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D :COPY OF NOTICE DATED 07.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT UNDER S.263. ANNEXURE E :COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DATED15.06.2011. ANNEXURE F :COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARDDATED 26.04.2004. ANNEXURE F1 :COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARDDATED 16.04.2006. ANNEXURE G :COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT UNDER S.263. ANNEXURE H :COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THEAPPELLANT BEFORE THE ITAT. //TRUE COPY// jg PA TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.Appeal No.20 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2013. J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. For the assessment year 2006-07, the Commissioner ofIncome Tax invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and issued Annexure G order holding that the mannerin which deferred expenditure was quantified and claimedby the assessee is not uniform. The Commissioner wastherefore of the view that the Assessing Officer had notcalled for and examined the issue in its entirety and thisclear error has caused prejudice to the interest of therevenue in the form of excess allowance. Resultantly, theCommissioner set aside the assessment with a direction tothe Assessing Officer to go into the manner in which thedeferred expenditure is worked out and whether there hasbeen any departure from the practice in the preceding year ITA 20/13 J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. For the assessment year 2006-07, the Commissioner ofIncome Tax invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and issued Annexure G order holding that the mannerin which deferred expenditure was quantified and claimedby the assessee is not uniform. The Commissioner wastherefore of the view that the Assessing Officer had notcalled for and examined the issue in its entirety and thisclear error has caused prejudice to the interest of therevenue in the form of excess allowance. Resultantly, theCommissioner set aside the assessment with a direction tothe Assessing Officer to go into the manner in which thedeferred expenditure is worked out and whether there hasbeen any departure from the practice in the preceding year ITA 20/13 and to decide the issue afresh. We do not see that the saidorder of the Commissioner contains any final decisionadverse to the interest of the assessee. Obviously therefore,following that order of remit, the Assessing Officer had toconsider the matter in terms of those directions. Theassessee carried an appeal to the Tribunal against theCommissioner's order. That has been dismissed as per theorder impugned in this appeal, pointedly holding that it isobligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to recordreason for allowing or disallowing the claim of the assesseetowards deferred expenditure. The Tribunal also held thatsince the assessment order did not contain any reason, itdid not reflect the application of mind of the AssessingOfficer and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of theAdministrative Commissioner. The said decision of theTribunal also does not contain any decision on the crucialissue of deferred expenditure and the quantification thereof.Under such circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity ITA 20/13 or other ground to visit the decision of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we are also told that following the Administrative Commissioner's order, the Assessing Officerhad passed revised assessment orders and that was carriedin an appeal, and by now, it is pending before the Tribunal.Obviously, there is nothing in the orders impugned in thisappeal, that would stand in the way of the Tribunal givingelaborate consideration of that appeal on all groundsavailable to the appellant/assessee, in accordance with law.With that observation, this appeal is dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)