Ita/863/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.kohinoor Wood Industries

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 ITA.No. 863 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.253/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT: ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- M/S.KOHINOOR WOOD INDUSTRIES, MOVVAL, PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 863 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised by the department is quite a technical onethat is, whether filing of re-constituted deed along with return is amandatory requirement for assessment as a firm. In this caseeventhough assessee failed to furnish the re-constituted deed alongwith return the deed was produced before the return was taken up forassessment. Further the department has no case that the deed wasproduced beyond the time prescribed for filing the return underSection 139(4) of the Act. So much so we notice that along withreturn the copy of the re-constituted deed was available with theofficer while assessment was taken up. Consequently we do not findany error in the order of the Tribunal directing assessment for therespondent as a firm. Department has no case that the firm is notgenuine or the re-constituted deed also is not genuine. Consequentlywe dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.