Ita/326/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.amalgam Foods Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 ITA.No. 326 of 2010() --------------------- ITA.150/COCH/2009 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT. ---------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- M/S.AMALGAM FOODS LIMITED, AMALGAM HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, BRISTO ROAD, COCHIN-682 003. ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I. T. A. No. 326 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, both sides submittedthat the order relied on by the Tribunal for allowing the appeal infavour of the respondent, that is the order in I.T.A. No. 971/Coch/2008,was appealed against before this Court, and this Court set aside theorder of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officerfor reconsideration in the light of the findings and observationscontained therein. Since disallownce involved in this case is the verysame, we feel the assessing officer should be directed to consider thiscase also in the light of Annexure G judgment rendered by this Court inthe case of M/s. Accelerated Freeze Drying Co. Ltd. This appeal isallowed by vacating the order of the Tribunal with direction to theassessing officer to consider the facts and decide the case on merits asdirected by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the I.T. Act. Theassessee should be given sufficient opportunity to raise their contentions and prove the same. In this case the order that waschallenged before the Tribunal was the one issued by theCommissioner under Section 263 of the Act, which was the subjectmatter of Annexure G judgment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk