Ita/78/2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.suntec Business Solutions Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1941 ITA.No. 78 of 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 278/Coch/2016 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 26-10-2018 APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE : THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE M/S.SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.'NILA', TECHNOPARK CAMPUS, KARIAVATTOM,TRIVANDRUM-695 581. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2019,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ. ************************** I.T.A.No.78 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of May, 2019 J U D G M E N T C.K.Abdul Rehim, J The appellant/revenue has instituted this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the IT Act'), challenging anorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Benchin I.T.A.No.278/Coch/2016, dated 26.10.2018. 2.An order of re-assessment under Section 144read with Section 147 of the IT Act, passed by theappellant herein, was cancelled by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) on the finding that the noticeissued under Section 148 of the IT Act citing the reasonthat no return of income was filed for the assessmentyear 2006-07, was not sustainable. The appellant took up the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in further appeal before the Tribunal. TheTribunal had confirmed the order of the appellateauthority and dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved bythe said order, the appellant is approaching this Court. 3.On the facts; it is evident that the assesseehad filed return with respect to the assessment year2006-07 quoting PAN No. . The return wasacknowledged by the Department. Subsequently a newPAN number was allotted to the assessee. Pursuant tothis, a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issuedalleging violation of the provisions of Section 139 of theIT Act, on the basis that no return was filed and that theincome chargeable to tax had escaped assessment withinthe meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. The assesseereplied that the return was filed on 29.11.2006 and theacknowledgement receipt in this regard was produced.He also submitted that, pursuant to receipt of the noticeunder Section 148 of the IT Act, he made an attempt to e-file the return with respect to the relevant assessmentyear, which was unsuccessful. 4.The question mooted for consideration beforethe authorities below was, whether there was failure onthe part of the assessee to submit the return of income.Both the appellate authorities concurrently found that,the assessee cannot be found fault in quoting the PANnumber which was duly allotted by the Department andheld as valid as on the date of filing of the return.Therefore the re-opened assessment was held asunsustainable. The question mooted for consideration before 5.In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellanthad raised the substantial question of law as to whetherthe appellate authorities are right in quashing the re-assessment on the ground that the proceedings initiatedunder Section 147 of the IT Act was without any validreason. On the facts enumerated as above, we are notsatisfied that there exists any substantial question of lawto be looked into under Section 260A of the IT Act. We In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant do not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived on the factual aspects involved. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same ishereby dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE jsr R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: The question mooted for consideration before 5.In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellanthad raised the substantial question of law as to whetherthe appellate authorities are right in quashing the re-assessment on the ground that the proceedings initiatedunder Section 147 of the IT Act was without any validreason. On the facts enumerated as above, we are notsatisfied that there exists any substantial question of lawto be looked into under Section 260A of the IT Act. We In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant do not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived on the factual aspects involved. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same ishereby dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE jsr R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED01.03.2013. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),TRIVANDRUM DATED15.04.2016. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT INITANO.278/COCH/2018FORTHEASST.YEAR 2006-07 DATED 26.10.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE