Ita/81/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.kerala State Industrial Products

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 ITA.No. 81 of 2008() -------------------- ITA.293/COCH//2000 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS TRADING CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.81 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The only question raised pertains to validity of revised incomeescaping assessment completed under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. After hearing counsel and after going through the orders of thelower authorities, we find that the purpose of reopening was to bring totax interest on deposits and to disallow expenditure incurred by thecompany by way of service charges paid to the Government pursuant toGovernment Orders. It is seen that both the appellate authorities havenot considered the case on merits. However, they allowed theassessee's claim on the ground that reopening is bad because all thematerial facts were available in the assessment record. Since on factsboth the CIT(Appeal) and the Tribunal found that material facts weredisclosed and there was no justification for reopening the assessment,we do not think it is a fit case for entertaining appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. However, our judgment should not be taken as adecision rendered on merits on the issues raised. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms K.SURENDRA MOHANJudge